(Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries) James Diggle, Theophrastus-Theophrastus - Characters-Cambridge University Press (2007)

This page intentionally left blank
CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS

A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S
editors
J. D I G G L E N. H O P K I N S O N J. G. F. P O W E L L
M . D. R E E V E D. N. S E D L E Y R . J. TA R R A N T
43
THEOPHRASTUS: CHARACTERS
THEOPHRASTUS
CHARACTERS
E D I T E D W I T H I N T RO D U C T I O N,
T R A N S L AT I O N A N D C O M M E N TA RY
BY
JA M E S D I G G L E
Professor of Greek and Latin
Cambridge University
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521839808
© Cambridge University Press 2004
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of

relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2004
ISBN-13 978-0-511-26468-9 eBook (EBL)

ISBN-10 0-511-26468-2 eBook (EBL)
ISBN-13 978-0-521-83980-8 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-83980-7 hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
CONTENTS
Preface page vii
i n t ro d u c t i o n 1
I Theophrastus and his times 1
II The nature and purpose of the Characters 4
i Title 4
ii Antecedents and relations 5
iii Later Peripatetics 9
iv Other developments 11
v The purpose of the Characters 12
vi Authenticity and integrity 16
vii Integrity and style 19
viii Literary influence 25
III Date 27
IV Transmission 37
i Preliminaries 37
ii The tradition in a nutshell 41
iii The manuscripts 43
V Some texts and commentaries 52
t e x t a n d t r a n s l at i o n 59
c o m m e n ta ry 161
a b b r ev i at i o n s a n d b i b l i o g r a p h y
I Select abbreviations 523
II Select bibliography 524
i Editions 524
ii Other works 525
v
CONTENTS
indexes
I Index uerborum 533
II Passages 557
III Subjects 567
IV Greek 587
vi
P R E FA C E
I owe an especial debt to three scholars. Jeffrey Fish transcribed
for me in the most minute detail the section of P. Herc. 1457 con-
taining sketch no. V. I am deeply grateful to him for selflessly
undertaking and so meticulously executing this long and de-
manding task. How much it has benefited me will be apparent to
readers of the commentary. Ioannis Stefanis generously supplied
information about the readings of the later manuscripts, loaned
me his photographs of A and B, and sent me a copy of an un-
published text and apparatus criticus of his own. I found that in
a few places he and I had independently hit upon the same con-
jecture. I should have assigned sole credit to Professor Stefanis,
had he not requested that I publish these conjectures under our
joint names. Paul Millett, from whom (as the commentary at-
tests) I had already learned so much, read the whole typescript,
saved me from several slips, and at other points sharpened my
argument.
I am grateful to Martin Ruehl for procuring photocopies of
more than a score of older books and pamphlets from libraries
in Germany; and, for a similar service in Greece, to Dimitrios
Beroutsos, Georgios Christodoulou, Daniel Jakob, and Antonios
Rengakos. Nigel Wilson kindly lent me his photographs of V and
sent me some comments on its script. Geoffrey Arnott answered
questions on pheasants and monkeys, Sir James Beament on
botany and entomology, and Paul Cartledge on historical prob-
lems. I am also indebted, for advice or help of various kinds, to
John Dillery, Bruce Fraser, Nikolaos Gonis, Ioannis Konstanta-
kos, Luigi Lehnus, Marianne McDonald, Stephen Oakley, Dirk
Obbink, Michael Reeve, Jeffrey Rusten, and Anne Thompson;
to Muriel Hall, copy-editor, for her care and vigilance; and for
generously undertaking to read the proofs, to Stephen Oakley
and Frederick Williams.
Two matters of numeration. First, ‘fr. 100 Fortenbaugh’ is
shorthand for fr. 100 in W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W.
vii
PREFACE
Sharples, D. Gutas (edd.), Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life,

Writings, Thought and Influence (Leiden etc. 1992–). Second, I have
numbered the sections of the Greek text afresh. Section-numbers
were first added by the Leipzig editors (1897), and these were
modified by Diels (1909). My numbering reflects what I take to
be the main divisions within the text.
Cambridge
September 2003
viii
I N T RO D U C T I O N
I THEOPHRASTUS AND HIS TIMES
The sources for the life of Theophrastus are collected in W. W.
Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharples, D. Gutas, Theophras-
tus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence
(Leiden 1992) frs. 1 –36. The primary source is D.L. 5.36–57
(fr. 1). Some modern discussions: O. Regenbogen, ‘Theophras-
tos’, RE Suppl. vii (1940) 1355–61 (ii.1 ‘Vita. Lebensumstände’),
M. G. Sollenberger, ‘The Lives of the Peripatetics: An analy-
sis of the contents and structure of Diogenes Laertius’ “Vitae
Philosophorum” Book 5’, ANRW ii.36.6 (1992) 3793–3879,
J. Mejer, ‘A Life in fragments: the Vita Theophrasti’, in J. M. van
Ophuijsen and M. van Raalte (edd.), Theophrastus: Reappraising
the Sources (New Brunswick and London 1998) 1 –28.
Theophrastus was born at Eresos on Lesbos (D.L. 5.36 = fr.
1.2) in 372/1 or 371 /0.1 His name, originally TÅrtamo, was
changed by Aristotle to Qe»jrato, in recognition (so later
writers believed) of his divine eloquence (D.L. 5.38 = fr. 1.30–1
di t¼ t¦ jrew qepion, Suda Q 199 = fr. 2.4 di t¼
qe©w jrzein).2 His association with Aristotle will have begin at
Athens, if we accept that he studied with Plato (D.L. 5.36 = fr.
1
Regenbogen 1357, Sollenberger 3843.
2
Cf. Str. 13.2.4 = fr. 5A.3 t¼n t¦ jrew aÉtoÓ z¦lon pihmain»meno,
‘setting his seal of approval on his style of speech’ (LSJ z¦lo iii.2; pihma©nw
iv.3, as in Char. II.4), not ‘signifying the fervour of his speech’ (H. L. Jones,
Loeb ed. 1929) nor ‘signifying his keenness for speech’ (Fortenbaugh et al.),
Cic. Orat. 62 = fr. 5b.2 <a> diuinitate loquendi nomen inuenit, Plin. Nat. praef. 29
hominem in eloquentia tantum ut nomen diuinum inde inuenerit, Quint. Inst. 10.1.83
in Theophrasto tam est loquendi nitor ille diuinus ut ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.
Anecdotal tradition (Cic. Brut. 172, Quint. Inst. 8.1.2 = fr. 7a–b; cf. Mejer
15–16) suggests that he was proud of his command of Attic but that others
regarded it as over-correct. The name Qe»jrato is common in Attica
(LGPN 2.223) and is attested elsewhere (LGPN 1.219, 3a.206–7). Cf. Regen-
bogen 1357, J. H. M. A. Indemans, Studiën over Theophrastus (Nijmegen 1953)
3–6, Sollenberger 3833–5.
1
1.4; cf. D.L. 3.46).3 Otherwise it will have begun at Assos (on
the coast of Asia Minor opposite Lesbos), where Hermias, ruler
of Atarneus, former fellow-student of Aristotle in the Academy,
gathered together a group of philosophers after the death of
Plato in 348/7. The association continued in Macedonia, where
Aristotle was invited by Philip II in 343/2,4 and in Athens, when
Aristotle returned there in 335/4 and founded the Lyceum.
The vicissitudes of the period which follows, and some of its
leading figures, are reflected in the Characters.5 Lycurgus, during
whose period of political influence Athens had retained a demo-
cratic constitution and a measure of independence from Mace-
don, died c. 325/4. Alexander (XXIII.3) died in 323. During the
uprising against Macedon which followed, Aristotle left Athens
for Euboea, where he died in 322/1, and Theophrastus became
head of the Lyceum (D.L. 5.36 = fr. 1.5–7). Antipater (XXIII.4),
regent of Macedonia, defeated the Athenians and their allies in
322, placed Athens under the control of Phocion, and imposed
an oligarchic constitution and a Macedonian garrison. He des-
ignated Polyperchon (VIII.6), general of Alexander, to succeed
him in preference to his own son Cassander (VIII.6, 9), with
whom Theophrastus was on friendly terms (D.L. 5.37 = fr. 1.13,
Suda Q 199 = fr. 2.8–9). Antipater died in 319. A struggle ensued
between Polyperchon and Cassander. Polyperchon offered the
Greek cities autonomy in return for their support. Athens rallied
to him and executed Phocion. Cassander defeated Polyperchon
and captured Athens in 317 and placed it under the control
of Demetrius of Phaleron, pupil of Theophrastus (D.L. 5.75).6
Through his influence Theophrastus, though a metic (like Aris-
totle), was allowed to own land (D.L. 5.39 = fr. 1.38–40), and so
3
Regenbogen 1357–8, W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy 6
(Cambridge 1981) 34–5, K. Gaiser, Theophrast in Assos: zur Entwicklung
der Naturwissenschaft zwischen Akademie und Peripatos (Heidelberg 1985) 24–7,
Sollenberger 3806–7, Mejer 17–19.
4
Cf. Ael. VH 4.19 = fr. 28.
5
For fuller discussion of historical allusions see the section on Date (pp. 27–37).
6
W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf (edd.), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text,
Translation and Discussion (New Brunswick and London 2000) 39 (no. 8).
2
THEOPHRASTUS AND HIS TIMES
to establish the Lyceum in buildings of its own.7 Demetrius was

expelled in 307. The restored democracy passed a law requir-
ing heads of philosophical schools to obtain a licence from the
state, and Theophrastus (along with other philosophers) briefly
withdrew from Athens (D.L. 5.38 = fr. 1.22–9).8 On his return
(the law was soon repealed) he remained head of the Lyceum
until his death at the age of 85 (D.L. 5.40 = fr. 1.46) in 288/7 or
287/6.
He is reputed to have had some 2,000 students (D.L. 5.37 =
fr. 1.16, Suda Q 199 = fr. 2.7).9 He bequeathed his books to his
pupil Neleus of Scepsis (D.L. 5.52 = fr. 1.310–11). The narra-
tive of their subsequent history should be treated with reserve:
together with the books of Aristotle, which Theophrastus had
inherited, they were stored underground, suffered damage, and
were sold to Apellicon of Teos, who issued unreliable copies; the
library of Apellicon was carried off to Rome when Sulla captured
Athens, and acquired by Tyrannion the grammarian, who, with
Andronicus of Rhodes, put further unsatisfactory copies into
circulation (Str. 13.1.54, Plu. Sull. 26.1 –3 = fr. 37–8).10
7
J. P. Lynch, Aristotle’s School (Berkeley etc. 1972) 97–105, Guthrie 39–40,
Sollenberger 3822–3, C. Habicht, ‘Hellenistic Athens and her philoso-
phers’, in Athen in Hellenistischer Zeit: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Munich 1994) 231 –47
(at 236), Mejer 20, L. O’Sullivan, ‘The law of Sophocles and the beginning
of permanent philosophical schools in Athens’, RhM 145 (2002) 251 –62.
8
Lynch 103–4, Sollenberger 3821 –2, Habicht 236–7, W. G. Arnott, Alexis:
The Fragments (Cambridge 1996) Appendix ii, H. B. Gottschalk in J. M. van
Ophuijsen and M. van Raalte (edd.), Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
(New Brunswick and London 1998) 282–3, O’Sullivan (n. 7 above).
9
Probably during his whole career (Regenbogen 1358, Habicht 233–4, Mejer
21, Gottschalk 283) rather than at any one time (advocates of this view are
listed by Sollenberger 3828; add Lane Fox 134 and n. 69, misrepresenting
Habicht).
10
Guthrie 59–65 is less sceptical of this story than H. B. Gottschalk, Hermes
100 (1972) 335–42. For its possible relevance to the early distribution of the
philosophical works of Aristotle and Theophrastus see Regenbogen 1375–9,
Mejer 25–7. It is unwise to found on it any theory concerning the early
history of the text of the Characters (as does Navarre (1931 ) 22–4; contra,
Ussher (1960) 14–15, Rusten 33). See p. 38 below.
3
II T H E N AT U R E A N D P U R P O S E
OF THE CHARACTERS
(i) Title
ABV entitle the work Carakt¦re. Diogenes Laertius, in his
catalogue of Theophrastus’ writings,11 lists it twice, first as
ìHqikoª carakt¦re aé, second as Carakt¦re qiko© (5.47–8
= fr. 1.201, 241 = fr. 436.4a).12
The history of the noun caraktr is discussed by A. Körte,
Hermes 64 (1929) 69–86 and B. A. van Groningen, Mnemosyne
58 (1930) 45–53. It describes the ‘stamp’ or ‘imprint’ on a coin,
a distinguishing mark of type or value (Arist. Pol. 1257 a 41 ¾
gr caraktr tqh toÓ pooÓ hme±on; cf. E. El. 558–9 t©
m ì ddorken ãper rgÅrou kopän | lampr¼n carakt¦r ì ;
§ proeikzei m twi;).13 It is also used figuratively, to describe
the ‘stamp’ of facial or bodily features, by which kinship or race
are distinguished (Hdt. 1.116.1 taÓta lgonto toÓ paid¼ t¼n
ìAtugea ie ngnwi aÉtoÓ ka© o¬ ¾ . . . caraktr toÓ
proÛpou projreqai d»kee wut»n, Hyp. fr. 196 Jensen
caraktr oÉdeª petin pª toÓ proÛpou t¦ diano©a to±
nqrÛpoi; cf. A. Su. 282, E. Med. 516–19, Hec. 379, El. 572),14
and the ‘stamp’ of speech, as marked by local dialect (caraktr
glÛh Hdt. 1.57.3, 1.142.4; cf. S. fr. 176) or by a style of speech
(Ar. Pax 220 ¾ goÓn caraktr ¡medap¼ tän çhmtwn) or
(in later literary criticism) by a style of writing (LSJ ii.5, Körte
79–83). Into this pattern fits Men. fr. 72 ndr¼ caraktr k
11
On the nature and sources of this catalogue see H. Usener, Analecta
Theophrastea (Leipzig 1858), Regenbogen 1363–70, Sollenberger 3854–5,
Mejer 22–4.
12
Two late manuscripts which have the title Carakt¦re qiko© are copied
from printed editions (Torraca (1994a) xii n. 8). For the suggestion (unac-
ceptable) that the repeated title refers to a second book of Characters see
p. 18.
13
R. Seaford, JHS 118 (1998) 137–9; also F. Will, ‘The concept of caraktr
in Euripides’, Glotta 39 (1960) 233–8.
14
Similarly Shakespeare, The Winter’s Tale II.3.98–9 ‘although the print be
little, the whole matter / and copy of the father’.
4
T H E N AT U R E A N D P U R P O S E O F T H E C H A R A C T E R S
l»gou gnwr©zetai, ‘the stamp of a man is recognised from his

speech’: speech typifies him, makes him a distinct and recognis-
able individual.
A work entitled Carakt¦re advertises nothing more specific
than ‘types’, ‘marks’, ‘distinctive features’, or ‘styles’. This is not
an adequate advertisement of Theophrastus’ work. Definition is
needed, and is provided by qiko©, which the manuscripts have
lost, but Diogenes Laertius has preserved. The title Characters,
hallowed by usage, is both misleading and incomplete. The true
title means something like Behavioural Types or Distinctive Marks of
Character.15
We hear of a few other works which may have been enti-
tled, in whole or part, Carakt¦re: (i) Perª lxew £ perª
caraktrwn by Antisthenes (D.L. 6.15);16 (ii) Carakt¦re aé
by Heraclides Ponticus (D.L. 5.88 = fr. 165 Wehrli), perhaps on
style;17 (iii) Carakt¦re £ FilokÛmwidoi by an unknown tragic
poet Dionysiades of Mallos (TrGF 105), n æi toÆ carakt¦ra
(styles?) paggllei tän poihtän (Suda D 1169);18 (iv) turo
n to± perª caraktrwn (Ath. 168C = FHG 3.164 fr. 20), dis-
cussed below (p. 11).
(ii) Antecedents and relations

The Characters, in conception and design, is a novel work: noth-
ing like it, so far as we know, had been attempted before. But
antecedents and relations can be recognised.
Descriptions of character-types had appeared sporadically in
other genres. Homer describes the deil» and the lkimo in
15
Addition of qiko© is commended by Körte 77 n. 3, P. Steinmetz, AUS 8
(1959) 224–6 = Kleine Schriften (Stuttgart 2000) 130–2 (and his commentary,
2 (1962) 7–8), W. W. Fortenbaugh, RhM 118 (1975) 81 –2, id. Quellen zur Ethik
Theophrasts (Amsterdam 1984) 93–4. Contra van Groningen 52–3.
16
The nature of the work and the authenticity of the title are disputed: G.
Giannantoni, Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae 4 (Naples 1990) 240–1.
17
F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, vii: Herakleides Pontikos (Basel 2 1969) 119.
18
R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, from the Beginnings to the Hellenistic Age
(Oxford 1968) 160.
5
ambush, the former pale and fidgety, his heart thumping and his
teeth chattering, the latter never blanching, eager for the fight
to start (Il. 13.278–86). Eustathius recognised in this a foreshad-
owing of Theophrastus: diakeuanto toÓ poihtoÓ rce-
tupikä Þ n tÅpwi carakt¦ra, ¾po©ou d tina Ìteron
kaª Qe»jrato xetupÛato, o³o mn ¾ lkimo n kairäi
l»cou, o³o d ¾ deil» (931.22–3 = 3.469.3–5 van der Valk).19
Semonides describes ten types of women (fr. 7).20 Herodotus
(through the mouth of a Persian) describes the m»narco (3.80.3–
6), and Plato describes the timokratik» (R. 548d–550b), the
½ligarcik» (553a–555a), the dhmokratik» (558c–562a), and
the turannik» (571 a–576b). Aristotle in the Rhetoric describes at
length the characters (¢qh) of noi, prebÅteroi, and kmzonte
(1389a 3–1390b 13), and more briefly of eÉgene±, ploÅioi, and
dunmenoi (1390b 16–1391 a 29).
In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle distinguishes and analyses
moral virtues and vices, qika© (as opposed to logika©) reta©
and kak©ai. Virtue is a mean between two opposing vices, one of
deficiency, the other of excess, in emotions and actions (1106b 16–
18). First he lists 13 pairs of vices, with their mean (1107 a 32–
1108b 6).21 Theophrastus has 9 (here asterisked) of the 26 vices.
Deficiency Mean Excess
∗
deil©a ndre©a qro
∗
naiqh©a wjroÅnh kola©a
∗
neleuqer©a leuqeri»th wt©a
∗ ∗
e«rwne©a lhqe©a lazone©a
∗
groik©a eÉtrapel©a bwmoloc©a
19
For a modern misunderstanding which has been built on the passage see
p. 19.
20
H. Lloyd-Jones, Females of the Species: Semonides on Women (London 1975) 29
(‘he may be considered an ancestor of Theophrastus’), 32–3.
21
Cf. EE 1220b 21 –1221 b 3 (a rather different list), W. F. R. Hardie, Aristotle’s
Ethical Theory (Oxford 2 1980) 129–51, R. Bosley, R. A. Shiner, J. D. Sisson
(edd.), Aristotle, Virtue and the Mean (Edmonton 1995).
6
∗
duerit©a jil©a rkeia
∗
dukol©a jil©a kolake©a
∗
naicunt©a a«dhmoÅnh katplhxi
Aristotle develops the analysis of individual virtues and vices

later (1115 a 4–1128b 33).22 Although he personalises their bear-
ers (exemplifying the deil» and the ndre±o, and so on, just
as in the Rhetoric he exemplifies noi and prebÅteroi), his per-
sons exist, for the most part, out of time and space, moral
paradigms, not flesh and blood. And so it is with the m»narco
of Herodotus and the political characters drawn by Plato.
But Aristotle provides the seed from which Theophrastus’s
descriptions grow. He often indicates, in abstract and gen-
eral terms, the circumstances or behaviour which are asso-
ciated with each virtue and vice. For example, Rh. 1379b 17–
19 to± pica©roui ta± tuc©ai kaª Âlw eÉqumoumnoi n
ta± aÉtän tuc©ai· £ gr cqroÓ £ ½ligwroÓnto hme±on
(taking pleasure in the discomforts of others is the hme±on,
i.e. caraktr, of a hostile or scornful man), 1383 b 19–20 o³on
t¼ pobale±n p©da £ juge±n· p¼ deil©a gr. kaª t¼
poter¦ai parakataqkhn· p¼ dik©a gr, 1383 b 22–5
t¼ kerda©nein p¼ mikrän £ a«crän £ p¼ duntwn . . . p¼
a«crokerde©a gr kaª neleuqer©a.
Instead of an abstract circumstance Theophrastus gives us a
real occasion, and instead of an anonymous agent, a real individ-
ual. So, while Aristotle says that t¼ perª aËtoÓ pnta lgein kaª
pagglleqai is typical of lazone©a (1384 a 4–6), Theophras-
tus lets us hear an ìAlazÛn making just such grand claims for
himself before visitors in the Piraeus (XXIII). The ndre±o,
according to Aristotle, will best display his fearlessness at sea or
in war (EN 1115 a 34–b 1). Theophrastus shows us the Deil» on a
ship and on the battlefield (XXV). Aristotle is even capable of
anticipating Theophrastus’s technique. The bnauo (Vulgar
Man) makes a tasteless display of his wealth on unimportant
22
Cf. EE 1228a 23–1234 b 13, MM 1190b 9–1193 a 38.
7
occasions, for example by entertaining his dining club on the

scale of a wedding banquet or, when acting as choregus for
a comedy, bringing on the chorus in purple (EN 1123 a 22–3
o³on ranit gamikä tiän kaª kwmwido± corhgän n t¦i
par»dwi porjÅran e«jrwn). With a minimum of change (o³o
ranit gamikä tin kaª . . . e«jrein) this becomes indis-
tinguishable from Theophrastus in content and style.
Like Homer, in his description of the deil» and the lkimo,
Theophrastus locates his characters in a specific time and place.
The time is the late fourth century. The place is Athens. And
it is an Athens whose daily life he recreates for us in dozens of
dramatic pictures and incidents. If we look elsewhere for such
scenes and such people, we shall not find them (until we come
to the Mimes of Herodas)23 except on the comic stage. ‘Plurima
inuenias in his breuibus reliquiis’, observed Casaubon, ‘quae
ueluti tabulae e naufragio superstites utcunque remanserunt,
ex quibus huius operis cum poetis, scenicis maxime et comi-
cis, quos esse optimos exprimendorum morum artifices scimus,
affinitas percipi queat’.24 Comedy furnishes much the same cast
of players. Five characters of Theophrastus give their names
to plays: the *groiko (Antiphanes, Menander, Philemon and
others), *pito (Menander), Deiida©mwn (Menander), K»lax
(Menander and others), Memy©moiro (Antidotus). Another, the
ìAlazÛn, appears regularly on stage.25 A late and dubious source
(Pamphile, FHG 3.522 fr. 10 ap. D.L. 5.36 = T. fr. 1.11 –12 = Men.
Test. 8) claims Menander as a pupil of Theophrastus.26
23
Cf. L. A. Llera Fueyo, ‘Teofrasto y Herodas’, Minerva 12 (1998) 91 –102, and
n. 77 below.
24 25
3rd edn. (1612) 88. See the Introductory Note to XXIII.
26
For suggested affinities with Old Comedy see R. G. Ussher, G&R 24 (1977)
75–9; with later Comedy and Menander, J. van Ijzeren, ‘Theophrastus en
de nieuwe comedie’, NPh 8 (1923) 208–20, P. Steinmetz, ‘Menander und
Theophrast: Folgerungen aus dem Dyskolos’, RhM 103 (1960) 185–91 =
Kleine Schriften (Stuttgart 2000) 152–8, A. Barigazzi, La Formazione spirituale
di Menandro (Turin 1965) 69–86. The subject is handled judiciously by K.
Gaiser, ‘Menander und der Peripatos’, AA 13 (1967) 8–40 (esp. 15 n. 36),
R. L. Hunter, The New Comedy of Greece and Rome (Cambridge 1985) 148–9,
8
And so a new type of work came into existence, owing some-

thing to the ethical theorising of the Lyceum and something to
the comic stage.
(iii) Later Peripatetics

Later Peripatetics attempted character-drawing of this kind, but
to what extent and for what purpose is unclear. Lycon, who suc-
ceeded Theophrastus’s successor Straton as head of the Lyceum
c. 269 bc, wrote a description of a drunkard, preserved in the
Latin translation of Rutilius Lupus (Lycon fr. 26 Wehrli ap. Rut.
Lup. 2.7, 1 st cent. ad). Rutilius adduces it as an example of char-
acterismos, the schema by which an orator depicts virtues and vices,
and he compares it to a painter’s use of colours. The opening
(Quid in hoc arbitrer bonae spei reliquum residere, qui omne uitae tempus una
ac despicatissima consuetudine producit?) betrays a moralising purpose.
The sketch is composed not of illustrations loosely linked but as
a coherent narrative, which follows the drunkard through the
day, a technique used only once by Theophrastus (the exploits
of the Deil» in XXV). In style, it is far from Theophrastus:
colours garish, rhetoric over-dressed, cleverness unremitting.27
A papyrus of Philodemus preserves parts of a series of
character-sketches, perhaps from a work Perª toÓ kouj©zein
Ëperhjan©a, ‘On Relief from Arrogance’,28 by Ariston of Keos,
who was probably Lycon’s successor (c. 225 bc). The characters
depicted in the parts we have (they represent aspects of Ëperh-
jan©a) are the AÉqdh, AÉqkato, Panteidmwn, and Erwn,
of whom the first and fourth are also depicted by Theophras-
tus; and perhaps also the emnok»po, EÉtelit, and
H.-G. Nesselrath, Die attische mittlere Komödie (Berlin 1990) esp. 150–1, Lane
Fox 139–40. See also W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Theophrast über den komischen
Charakter’, RhM 124 (1981) 245–60. For suggested affinities with mime see
H. Reich, Der Mimus (Berlin 1903) 307–20.
27
There is a good appreciation of the piece by G. Pasquali, RLC 1 (1918)
143–4 = Scritti Filologici (Florence 1986) 56–8.
28
For this translation of the title see M. Gigante, CErc 26 (1966) 132 n. 16
(cf. 27 (1997) 153–4).
9
OÉdenwt.29 Although the form of the original sketches

has been obscured by introductory matter, commentary, and
paraphrase from Philodemus, it is clear that Ariston follows
Theophrastus closely in style, technique, and content. He uses
the introductory formula toioÓto . . . o³o or something like it,30
builds his sentences around infinitives constructed with that for-
mula, makes much use of participles, and normally links clauses
and sentences with a simple ka©. And he uses the same kind of
illustrative vignettes from everyday life: a man asks for hot or cold
water without consulting his fellow-bather (fr. 14, i p. 36.17–19
n t¦i mkrai qerm[¼]n [£ yu]cr¼n a«te±n m[ p]roanakr. [©n]a.
t¼n umbebhk»t ì (u<ne>mb- Kassel and Austin on Eup. 490)
e« kke©[nwi unarkei) and does not reciprocate a rub with
oil (fr. 14, ii p. 36.21 –2 t¼n unale©yanta m ntiunale©jein)
or is deficient in epistolary courtesies (fr. 14, ii p. 36.25–6
gr[j]wn pitoln t¼ ca©rein m progryai (Diggle: pro-
P) mhd ì rräqai teleuta±on)31 or postures Socratically (fr. 14,
vii p. 39.13–14 “ ìEgÜ gr o²da t© pl[n ge] toÅtou, Âti [oÉ]dn
o²da;”). In style and wit there is nothing to distinguish these from
Theophrastus.32
29
Text in F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, vi: Lykon und Ariston von Keos (Basel
2
1968) frs. 14–16, also in Rusten 182–95. Wehrli’s view that the character-
sketches belong to a separate work, not the work on Ëperhjan©a, is contested
by M. Gigante, Kepos e Peripatos (Naples 1999) 123–33. See also W. Knögel, Der
Peripatetiker Ariston von Keos bei Philodem (Leipzig 1933), Regenbogen 1508–9.
Further bibliography in E. Kondo, CErc 1 (1971 ) 87 n. 9.
30
See the commentary on I.2.
31
Cf. Pl. Bac. 1000 non priu’ salutem scripsit?, Plu. 1035 b-c (Chrysipp. SVF 2 fr. 30)
e« m, kaqper o¬ t yhj©mata ta± p»lein e«jronte progrjouin
ìAgaqn TÅchn, oÌtw kaª aÉt¼ progryeie t¼n D©a ktl., Luc. Laps. 5 oÎte
t¼ ca©rein oÎte t¼ eÔ prttein proÅgrajen. The prefix pro- is (i) apt with
t¼ ca©rein, (ii) needed to provide a temporal contrast with teleuta±on. There
is a mild zeugma: with mhd ì rräqai teleuta±on understand Ëpogryai
(Luc. Laps. 10 pª tlei . . . ntª toÓ rräqai Ëpogrya t¼ ca©rein). See
also XXIV.13.
32
A good appreciation of his style by Pasquali, RLC 1 (1918) 144–7 = Scritti
Filologici (1986) 59–62.
10
A single sentence is preserved from a work, possibly but not

certainly entitled Perª caraktrwn,33 by Satyrus (Ath. 168c =
FHG 3.164 fr. 20), presumably the Peripatetic biographer
(3rd/2nd cent.).34 It describes the behaviour of wtoi, in
a series of asyndetic participial clauses: polmioi t¦ oÉ©a
Ëprconte, Þ turo n to± perª caraktrwn erhken,
katatrconte t¼n gron, diarpzonte tn o«k©an, layuro-
pwloÓnte t Ëprconta, kopoÓnte oÉ t© dedapnhtai
ll t© dapanhqetai, oÉd t© peritai ll t© oÉ peritai,
n t¦i ne»thti t toÓ grw j»dia prokatanal©konte,
ca©ronte t¦i ta©rai, oÉ to± ta©roi, kaª täi onwi, oÉ to±
ump»tai. The style, all rhetorical balance and antithesis, is
unlike Theophrastus, but is not unlike some of the spurious
accretions (VI.7, VIII.11, X.14).35
(iv) Other developments

The Stoic Posidonius (fr. 176 Edelstein-Kidd ap. Sen. Ep. 95.65–
7) proclaims the utility of qolog©a, his term for carakthrim»:
to display a model of virtue is to invite its imitation. We have
already seen Lycon, with his model of vice, serving the same
moral purpose (p. 9).
In the Roman period character-drawing becomes firmly
associated with rhetoric. The author (1 st cent. bc) of Rhetor-
ica ad Herennium illustrates the technique of what he calls nota-
tio (i.e. carakthrim») with a richly textured sketch (4.63–4),
for delivery in court, of The Man Who Shows Off Pretended
Wealth (ostentatorem pecuniae gloriosum),36 at first in the manner
33
See p. 5.
34
Gudeman, ‘Satyros’ (16 and 17), RE ii.1 A (1921) 228–35.
35
Cf. Pasquali (1918) 144 = (1986) 58–9.
36
I adopt pecuni<ae glori>osum (Kayser) for pecuniosi (u.l. -sum), since the con-
struction ostentatorem pecuniosi (endorsed by TLL and OLD) is unbelievable.
Cf. 4.65 huiusmodi notationes . . . totam . . . naturam cuiuspiam ponunt ante oculos,
aut gloriosi, ut nos exempli causa coeperamus, aut inuidi etc., Cic. Flac. 52 gloriosa
ostentatio ciuitatis.
11
of Theophrastus, but soon developing into anecdotal narrative

more in the manner of Lycon (p. 9).37 Cicero uses the term descrip-
tio (Top. 83 descriptio, quam carakt¦ra Graeci uocant . . . qualis sit
auarus, qualis adsentator ceteraque eiusdem generis, in quibus et natura
et uita describitur). Such character-drawing was practised in the
schools of rhetoric (Quint. Inst. 6.2.17 illa in scholis ¢qh . . . quibus
plerumque rusticos superstitiosos auaros timidos secundum condicionem posi-
tionum effingimus).
And character-types are sketched by the satirists: the bore
(Hor. S. 1.9), the bellus homo (Mart. 3.63), the miser (Juv. 14.109–
34).
(v) The purpose of the Characters

The work has been tailored, by more than one hand, to serve an
ethical purpose. The prooemium introduces it as a work of moral
guidance for the young. The epilogues advise or moralise. The
definitions have links with ethical theorising.38 When we are rid
of these accretions, the work lacks all ethical dimension. Nothing
is analysed, no moral is drawn, no motive is sought.39 If the
work has a purpose, that purpose must be sought elsewhere. But
purpose cannot be separated from form. And we do not know
whether what remains, after the ethical accretions are removed,
has the form which Theophrastus gave it.
It has been suggested that the Characters are a collection of
extracts from one or more works of Theophrastus. But the coher-
ence and stylistic unity of the collection prove that its parts are
not derived from unconnected works. And, if they are derived
37
He is comparable to Theophrastus’s ìAlazÛn (XXIII). There is another
shared motif at XXI.4.
38
See p. 17.
39
For these as features which fundamentally distinguish the work from Aristo-
tle’s ethical writings see D. J. Furley, ‘The purpose of Theophrastus’ Charac-
ters’, SO 30 (1953) 56–60, W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Die Charaktere Theophrasts:
Verhaltensregelmäßigkeiten und aristotelische Laster’, RhM 118 (1975)
62–82.
12
from a single work, it still remains to explain what the purpose

of that other work might have been.40
It has been suggested that the Characters were conceived with
a rhetorical purpose.41 They are models for orators, a paintbox
out of which an orator may draw the shades to suit him.42
Or that they have connections with the theoretical writings
of Theophrastus and others on comedy, such as Theophrastus’s
Perª gelo©ou and Perª kwmwid©a (D.L. 5.46, 47 = fr. 1.184,
208 = fr. 666 nos. 23 and 22), or the ‘Tractactus Coislinianus’,
which has Peripatetic associations and has even been taken to
40
Extracts from a variety of works were first suggested by K. G. Sonntag, In
prooemium Characterum Theophrasti (Leipzig 1787); extracts from a work on
ethics by Schneider (1799) xxv, H. Sauppe, Philodemi de Vitiis Liber Dec-
imus (Leipzig 1853) 8–9, Petersen (1859) 56–118, R. Schreiner, De genuina
Characterum Theophrasteorum Forma Commentatio (Znaim 1879). Jebb (1870)
21 –37 = (1909) 9–16 argues effectively against Petersen; with equal effect,
against the whole theory of extracts, T. Gomperz, ‘Ueber die Charaktere
Theophrast’s’, SAWW 117 (1889) x. Abh., 1 –9. See also Gomperz, Griechische
Denker 3 (Leipzig 1909) 375–83 = Greek Thinkers 4 (London 1912) 480–9. But
the theory has recently been revived: ‘a Hellenistic compilation in which
Theophrastean material was redistributed under single headings’ (M. L.
West, HSPh 73 (1969) 121 n. 29).
41
O. Immisch, ‘Ueber Theophrasts Charaktere’, Philologus 57 (1898) 193–212.
Others who see a rhetorical purpose are Furley (n. 39 above), S. Trenkner,
The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge 1958) 147–54 (her claim
that T.’s source was not real life so much as an existing tradition of ‘narrative
qolog©a’, i.e. character-anecdotes, is not established by the detection of
parallel motifs in later Greek and Latin humorists), B. Stevanović, ‘Contri-
bution au problème des modèles de quelques caractères de Théophraste (IX
et XXX)’, ZAnt 10 (1960) 75–80, V. V. Valchenko, ‘To what literary family do
the “Characters” of Theophrastus belong?’, VDI 177 (1986) 162 (summary;
article in Russian 156–62), Fortenbaugh, ‘Theophrastus, the Characters and
Rhetoric’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. C. Mirhady (edd.), Peripatetic Rhetoric
after Aristotle (New Brunswick and London 1994) 15–35. Further documen-
tation in E. Matelli, S&C 13 (1989) 329–35, 377–86. Pertinent criticism
by Lane Fox 139; more ponderously (against Immisch) C. Hoffmann, Das
Zweckproblem von Theophrasts Charakteren (Breslau 1920) 9–28.
42
‘eine Motivsammlung, . . . ein Farbenkasten’ (Immisch 207). This argu-
ment owes too much to their later history. They survive because, in the
Byzantine period, they were incorporated with the treatises of Hermogenes
and Apthonius, whose discussions of §qo and qopoi©a they were taken to
illustrate. See below, p. 38.
13
derive from Aristotle’s lost work on comedy.43 They are ‘a mere

appendix at the end of a work on the theory of drama’, ‘an
aid for the playwrights of contemporary drama, a handbook of
characterization for Menander . . . and his fellows’.44
Or the work is an Ëp»mnhma, ‘wie das Skizzenbuch eines
Malers zu seinen ausgeführten Gemälden’, like a painter’s
sketchbook to his finished paintings – a preparatory sketch for
the ìHqik or Perª qän, to which it bears the same relation-
ship as the various Aristotelian Constitutions to the Politics and the
Homeric Problems to the Poetics.45
Any attempt to interpret the work as a serious treatise comes
up against an objection neatly formulated by Jebb. ‘The difficulty
is, not that the descriptions are amusing, but that they are written
as if their principal aim was to amuse.’46
Jebb’s answer is that Theophrastus wrote the Characters for his
own amusement and that of his friends, who put them together
after his death and issued them in collections of various sizes
43
A. Rostagni, ‘Sui “Caratteri” di Teofrasto’, RFIC 48 (1920) 417–43 = Scritti
Minori (Turin 1955) 327–55, followed by P. van de Woestyne, ‘Notes sur la
nature des Caractères de Théophraste’, RBPh 8 (1929) 1099–1107, Ussher
(1960) 5–6, 23, id. ‘Old Comedy and “Character”’, G&R 24 (1977) 71 –9,
A. Dosi, ‘Sulle tracce della Poetica di Teofrasto’, RIL 94 (1960) 599–672
(esp. 635–6). For the Tractatus Coislinianus see R. Janko, Aristotle on Comedy
(London 1984), Nessselrath (n. 26 above) 102–62.
44
Ussher (1960) 23, (1977) 75. Much the same words in van de Woestyne 1107,
Dosi 635–6. Pertinent comment in Lane Fox 139–40.
45
Gomperz, SAWW 117 (1889) x. Abh., 10–13. The argument that the work
is an ‘empirische Materialsammlung zu seinem ethologischen Hauptwerke
Perª qän’ (Hoffmann (n. 41 above) 32) is founded on the false assump-
tion that the ethical dimension which the work now has was given to it by
Theophrastus (see p. 12 above). I say nothing of the curious argument of
P. Steinmetz, ‘Der Zweck der Charaktere Theophrasts’, AUS 8 (1959) 209–
46 = Kleine Schriften (Stuttgart 2000) 115–52, that T. is cocking a snook at
Dicaearchus, Zeno, and Epicurus.
46
Jebb (1870) 29 = (1909) 13. Comparable, in this respect, is the extract
from T.’s essay on Marriage, translated or paraphrased by Jerome (fr. 486
Fortenbaugh; also Fortenbaugh, Quellen l 46, with commentary 207–12).
Casaubon’s often cited description of the Characters as ‘aureolus libellus’ is
an echo of Jerome’s ‘aureolus Theophrasti liber De Nuptiis’.
14
and shapes.47 In evidence of this he adduces their lack of sym-

metry, the capriciousness of their order, and the multiformity
of the manuscript tradition. The manuscript tradition licenses
no such inference.48 With regard to symmetry, some sketches
are incomplete, and others may be.49 As for order, accidents
of transmission may have disturbed a less capricious design; or
what seems caprice may be designed to avoid the appearance of
a textbook.
There is another possibility, which meets Jebb’s objection, and
gives at least as plausible an account of the origins of the sketches.
Pasquali suggested that they were conceived as illustrative show-
pieces for a course of lectures on ethics, a few moments’ light
entertainment amid more serious matter, and for that reason
composed in a simple style which suits oral delivery, and not
designed for publication by Theophrastus himself.50
According to a reputable source, Theophrastus was a lively
lecturer:
í Ermippo d jhi Qe»jraton parag©neqai e« t¼n per©paton
kaq ì ãran lampr¼n kaª xhkhmnon, e²ta kaq©anta diat©qeqai t¼n
l»gon oÉdemi pec»menon kinew oÉd cmato n». ka© pote
½y»jagon mimoÅmenon xe©ranta tn gläan perile©cein t ce©lh
(Ath. 21 B = Hermipp. fr. 51 Wehrli = T. fr. 12).
Hermippus [3rd cent. bc] says that Theophrastus would arrive at the
Peripatos punctually, smart and well dressed, then sit down and deliver
his lecture, in the course of which he would use all kinds of movements
and gestures. Once, when he was imitating a gourmet, he stuck out his
tongue and licked his lips.
47
Jebb 18–21, 37–40 = 8–9, 16–17. Lane Fox 141 detects much the same
purpose (see below, p. 37).
48
See the section on Transmission (pp. 37–51).
49
V and XIX each consist of two parts, which come from separate sketches;
in V both parts, in XIX one or both, are incomplete.
50
‘elaborazione dei punti salienti di un corso di lezioni di “fenomenologia de’
costumi”’ (RLC 1 (1918) 77 = Scritti Filologici (1986) 53), ‘parte . . . di un corso
di etica descrittiva’ (ed. 1919, vi = 1956, x). See also (from his later review
of Navarre) Gnomon 2 (1926) 86–8 = Scritti Filologici 844–7.
15
I can believe it. And I can picture him picking a speck of straw
from another’s beard (II.3), stuffing his cloak into his mouth to
stop himself from laughing (II.4), officiously arranging cushions
(II.11), grabbing a dog’s snout (IV.9), staggering forward as if bur-
dened by a jar, his hands plucking at documents which threaten
to elude his grasp (VI.8), dousing himself with a ladleful of water
(IX.8), rummaging through the rubbish for a lost coin (X.6),
wiping his nose on his hand while pretending to eat and scratch-
ing himself while purporting to sacrifice (XIX.5), sponging a
wound and swatting flies (XXV.5), and twisting his buttocks for
a wrestling throw (XXVII.14), while reciting his sketches in the
lecture hall.
There was a famous Professor in Oxford who would introduce
into his seminars, as if on impulse, carefully designed sketches
of past scholars, one for each occasion. I heard him once: he
sketched Pasquali.
(vi) Authenticity and integrity

Doubts have arisen from time to time that Theophrastus is the
author of the Characters. Doubters include Victorius,51 Valcke-
naer,52 Porson,53 and Haupt.54
The prooemium used to be a stumbling-block: its author is
ninety-nine years old, and Theophrastus, according to Diogenes
Laertius, died at eighty-five. Casaubon emended one or other
number. But now we know better. The prooemium is spurious, a
very late addition.
When we have deleted the prooemium, what remains is not,
as it stands, the work of Theophrastus. Several sketches (I, II,
51
Variae Lectiones 1 (Lyon 1554) 302, 326, 2 (Florence 1569) 210 = ed. 2 (Florence
1582) 196, 211, 434.
52
On Theoc. 15.33 (Leiden 1773, 333).
53
‘Putabat scilicet, nisi me uehementer fallit memoria, falso tribui
Theophrasto Characteras, antiquos tamen esse concedens’, Dobree on Ar.
Pl. 1021 (in P. P. Dobree (ed.), Ricardi Porsoni Notae ad Aristophanem, Cambridge
1820).
54
Opuscula 3 (Leipzig 1876) 434, 498, 592.
16
III, VI, VIII, X, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX) have epilogues, which

betray themselves as later (perhaps much later) additions by their
language, style, and moralising tone.
And there are the introductory definitions. Some reflect the
pseudo-Platonic Definitions,55 others the phraseology of Aristotle
or pseudo-Aristotle; some describe a form of behaviour which
has little or nothing to do with the behaviour described in the
sketch itself; even those which are unobjectionable are no better
than banal. They were added before the time of Philodemus,
who quotes def. II. They first came under suspicion early in
the nineteenth century.56 Nearly everyone continued to defend
them.57 That they are spurious and must be deleted en bloc has
been established beyond all doubt by Markus Stein.58 It may be
objected that Stein has proved only that some, not all, definitions
are spurious; and that there are some whose spuriousness cannot
be proved, nor does Stein claim to have proved it. In that spirit,
a recent editor has deleted some but not all of them. This is
wrong. We cannot pick and choose. The definitions have the
same stamp. They come from the same workshop. They stand
and fall together.
When we have stripped the work of its prooemium, its epilogues,
and its definitions, we still have not unwrapped the genuine arti-
cle. Numerous further additions are embedded in the sketches,
ranging in extent from single words to brief phrases (IV.4, VIII.7,
XVIII.6, XIX.4, XX.9, XXI.11, XXII.7, XXX.10), whole
55
For which see H. G. Ingenkamp, Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Defi-
nitionen (Wiesbaden 1967); also Stein (n. 58 below) esp. 283–5.
56
Priority is usually assigned to F. Hanow, De Theophrasti Characterum Libello
(Leipzig 1858). He was anticipated by Bloch (1814), who stigmatised ‘some’
or ‘most’ (‘quaedam’ xii, xiii, 85, ‘pleraeque’ 79) but explicitly con-
demned only XIII and XXVIII, and by Darvaris (1815), who condemned
them all.
57
Exceptions are Petersen (1859), Ussing (1868), and Gomperz (SAWW 117
(1889) x. Abh., 2–4 , ibid. 139 (1898) i. Abh., 11 –13).
58
Definition und Schilderung in Theophrasts Charakteren (Stuttgart 1992). See below,
p. 57. H. Escola, ‘Le statut des définitions dans les Caractères: de Théophraste
à La Bruyère’, Lalies 17 (1997) 175–86, contributes nothing pertinent.
17
sentences (II.9, VI.2, VII.5, VIII.5, XVI.13) and even a sen-

tence of paragraph length (VI.7).
Here is a simple proof that interpolation is a real phe-
nomenon, not a fiction designed to save Theophrastus’s credit.
In V.10 a show-off hires out his little wrestling-school to to±
jilo»joi to± ojita± to± ¾plomcoi to± rmoniko±,
for them to perform in. This quartet of philosophers, sophists,
drill-sergeants, and music lecturers, listed in asyndeton, ought
to worry us. Theophrastus has several trios of nouns or verbs
in asyndeton, but no quartets. Furthermore, philosophers and
sophists are too much alike, when compared with the pair which
follows, drill-sergeants and music lecturers. If we are to reduce
the list to three, by getting rid of either the sophists or the philoso-
phers, we must get rid of the philosophers, because sophists are
more likely than philosophers to wish to hire a place for public
displays. And the Herculaneum papyrus omits the philosophers.
There is an important lesson here. Anything that is anomalous
should be regarded with suspicion. Nothing is genuine merely
because it is in the manuscripts and cannot be proved to be
spurious.
Much, then, has been added; and probably much has been
lost.59 It has even been argued that a whole second book, describ-
ing virtuous characters, once existed.60 This rests on three sup-
positions, all false: (i) That the author of the prooemium, when
he says that he will describe toÆ gaqoÅ as well as toÆ
jaÅlou, knew of a book of gaqo©. The author makes sev-
eral statements which show him to be a bungler and a fraud.
(ii) That Diogenes Laertius, when he lists Carakt¦re twice,61
refers to two separate books. His catalogue is made up of four
or five different lists,62 so that several titles appear more than
59
There are many lacunae. And there were once more than thirty sketches
(n. 49 above).
60
For example, Rostagni (1920) 439–40 = (1955) 350–1, Edmonds (1929) 7–8,
Ussher (1960) xi, 3–4, (1993) 301 –2, Torraca (1994a) xxx–xxxii.
61 62
See p. 4. See n. 11 above.
18
once.63 (iii) That Eustathius, when he says (in the passage

quoted above, p. 6) that Homer created archetypal characters,
as Theophrastus was later to do, o³o mn ¾ lkimo n kairäi
l»cou, o³o d ¾ deil», ascribes to Theophrastus a description
of the lkimo as well as the deil». The words n kairäi l»cou
show that Eustathius is citing these characters from Homer, not
from Theophrastus.64
(vii) Integrity and style

Antiquity believed that Theophrastus was aptly named, because
his speech was divine.65 Quintilian praised its brightness (Inst.
10.1.83 loquendi nitor ille diuinus), Cicero its sweetness (Ac. 1.33
oratione suauis, Brut. 121 quis . . . Theophrasto dulcior?),66 and he was
accustomed to call Theophrastus his «d©a truj, ‘own special
delight’ (Plu. Cic. 24.6).
Some modern judges have looked in vain for sweetness and
brightness in the Characters. ‘The Greek is not Greek at its most
limpid’;67 ‘sometimes obscure or inelegant . . . unvaried and
abrupt’, ‘notes for lectures . . . they can hardly have been written
for separate publication as a literary work’.68
Let us take another lesson from the Herculaneum papyrus.
The Greek for that ‘little wrestling-school’ is, according to the
manuscripts, aÉl©dion palaitria±on. The noun aÉl©dion is
attested once, as diminutive of aÉl», in the sense ‘small tube’.
LSJ invents a sense for it to have here, ‘place of athletic exer-
cises, ring’. The adjective palaitria±o is attested only here.
63
Perª diabol¦ a é (fr. 1.189, 252, 275), Perª tän problhmtwn juikän a é
(fr. 1.227, 266), Protreptik¼ a é (fr. 1.262, 284). Several other titles appear
to be variants of each other.
64
For a further flawed attempt to find traces of a lost sketch in Eustathius see
the Introductory Note to II.
65
See p. 1.
66
For suauis and dulcis as terms of stylistic criticism see D. C. Innes in W. W.
Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, A. A. Long (edd.), Theophrastus of Eresus: On his Life
and Work (New Brunswick and Oxford 1985) 251.
67 68
R. G. Ussher (1960) 3. P. Vellacott (1967) 8.
19
LSJ takes it to mean ‘suited for a pala©tra’. Cobet replaced

aÉl©dion palaitria±on with palaitr©dion. The papyrus con-
firms his conjecture. But, if the papyrus did not exist, editors
would be as blind to its merits as LSJ. The lesson is the same as
before. Anomalies ought to provoke suspicion. Nothing is right
merely because it is in the manuscripts and cannot be proved to
be wrong.
And the application of that lesson is this: we must not call
Theophrastus ‘obscure’ and ‘inelegant’ and ‘not limpid’, simply
because much of what we read in our printed texts is obscure and
inelegant and unlimpid. Our printed texts are nothing more than
the best that editors have been able to make of what is probably
the corruptest manuscript tradition in all of Greek literature.
Let us now see that Theophrastus can, and often does, write
Greek that is the reverse of obscure and inelegant and unlimpid.
The *groiko is a countryman who comes to town and shows
his country manners. Here is the first sentence of the sketch:
¾ d groiko toioÓt» ti o³o kukeäna piÜn e« kklh©an
poreÅeqai, kaª t¼ mÅron jkein oÉdn toÓ qÅmou ¤dion Àzein, kaª
me©zw toÓ pod¼ t Ëpodmata jore±n, kaª meglhi t¦i jwn¦i
lale±n.
The Country Bumpkin is the sort of man who drinks a bowl of gruel
before going to the Assembly and claims that garlic smells as sweetly
as perfume, wears shoes too large for his feet and talks at the top of his
voice (IV.2).
What could be more limpid than that? The Greek is simpli-

city itself, and conveys, in a very few words, a range of telling
impressions, which develop logically the one from the other.
First, he drinks for breakfast a kukeÛn, highly flavoured broth or
gruel. His breath will now be pungent. He goes to the Assem-
bly, where he will meet townsmen, on whom he will pungently
breathe. And he says that garlic smells as sweetly as perfume.
There was (we infer) garlic in his gruel, and so there is garlic on
his breath. In the town they smell not of garlic but of perfume.
But perfume and garlic are all one to him. And he clomps his
20
way to town in boots too big for him, and talks too loud. Sound,
sight, smell: a slovenly carefree inconsiderate yokel. All that in
twenty-six words. Lecture notes, never intended for publication?
Or loquendi nitor ille diuinus?
Another illustration from the same sketch:
t¦i qÅrai (tn qÅran AB) ËpakoÓai aÉt», kaª t¼n kÅna
prokalemeno kaª pilab»meno toÓ çÅgcou e«pe±n “OÕto
julttei t¼ cwr©on kaª tn o«k©an”.
He answers the door himself, calls his dog, grabs it by the snout, and
says ‘This guards my estate and home’ (IV.9).
First, he answers the door himself. Why? Normally, you would

have a slave to answer the door for you. Is he too poor to keep a
slave for that purpose? On the contrary, he has an ample house-
hold, as we learn elsewhere in the sketch. What follows suggests
a different answer. A knock at the door alarms him, and so he
investigates for himself who his visitor is. Perhaps he does not
have many visitors, and anyone who knocks at his door is an
object of suspicion. Next, he muzzles the dog by taking hold
of its snout. Again, why? Again, Theophrastus has prompted a
question, and again we have to supply the answer. By muzzling
the dog he shows his visitor that it can bark and bite, and will
do so if he lets go of its snout. If the visitor intends harm, he
will take the man’s action to mean ‘Beware of the dog’. If he
intends no harm, he may suppose that the dog has been muz-
zled as a courtesy to him. Then the *groiko grandly describes
the dog as guardian of his estate and home. If the visitor is inno-
cent, this is an expression of pride in the animal. Otherwise, it
means ‘This dog has got the measure of you.’ The words cwr©on
and o«k©a, simple and prosaic on their own, when paired sound
pompous and affected. There is something very similar in Petro-
nius. Trimalchio summons his dog Scylax into the dining room
and calls him, with affectation and pomposity, praesidium domus
familiaeque (64.7), ‘the protection of my house and household’.
The lesson is this. By the simplicity and economy of his language
21
Theophrastus can prompt us to think, to ask questions, to fill in

the details for ourselves and supply the thoughts at which he
only hints.
Next, see how much he can hint at in the careful placing of
a single word. The ìOyimaq, The Late Learner, is a man who
pursues activities for which he is too old:
rän ta©ra kaª kri¼ (-oÆ V) probllwn ta± qÅrai plhg

e«lhjÜ Ëp ì nteratoÓ dikzeqai.
He falls for a courtesan and rams her door, and when her other lover
beats him up he goes to court (XXVII.9).
This is a masterly sentence, short and simple, with the most

telling detail reserved for the final word.69 A man past his prime
has fallen for a hetaira. He behaves like the typical infatuated
young lover from comedy, elegy, and mime: he tries to batter
her door down. Along comes her other lover, a young man we
assume, to claim not only the girl but also the role (as batterer)
which the old man has usurped from him. So battery (but of
a different kind) follows: he beats the old man up. And now
comes the real punch. Because we have not yet had an infinitive,
we know that the story is not over. What conclusion might we
expect? Any sensible man will now retire chastened, to lick his
wounds in silence and hush up his humiliation. But not our Late
Learner. He takes the young man to court on a charge of assault
and battery. He steps out of comedy, elegy, and mime, and steps
back into real life, to become an ordinary litigious Athenian. But
at the same time he remains the man he was, insensitive to his
own absurdity, impervious to the ridicule of others: ridiculous
then as the elderly lover, now to be ridiculous again when his
past behaviour is exposed in court. What an ancient biographer
said of Sophocles could equally be said of Theophrastus, that
69
I leave for the commentary discussion of the conjecture kri», which adds
yet more vigour to the picture.
22
he can create a whole personality out of half a line or a single

word.70
Now look at a couple of nouns. The ìAponenohmno, The
Man Who Has Lost All Sense, comes into court
cwn c±non n täi prokolp©wi kaª ¾rmaqoÆ grammateid©wn n ta±
cer©n
with a boxful of evidence in his coat pocket and strings of little docu-
ments in his hands (VI.8).
This translation does not get the full flavour of the nouns. The
c±no is a sealed jar in which a plaintiff or defendant places all
the evidence relating to an impending court case. The prok»l-
pion is a sort of pouch, such as kangaroos have. You make this
pouch by pulling your citÛn up through your belt and letting
it hang out in a capacious fold. Why he needs to carry the jar
in this pouch is shown by the next phrase. His hands are full of
¾rmaqoÆ grammateid©wn, ‘strings or chains of little documents’.
Some take this in a literal sense, to mean that the documents are
tied together in a bundle. But a word exists for a bundle of doc-
uments tied together. That word is not ¾rmaq» but dmh. The
‘strings’ or ‘chains’ are probably metaphorical. And so the man,
as he enters the courtroom, cuts a ridiculous and ungainly figure
by carrying a bulky jar in the front fold of his cloak, while his
hands are full of an endless chain of little documents. This is
the kind of picture that Dickens loves to draw, where farce and
exaggeration teeter on the borders of the credible.
Now see how a style of speech can characterise a man. The
Mikrojil»timo, The Man of Petty Ambition, while serving
as a member of the Council, secures for himself the task of
announcing in the Assembly the outcome of official sacrifices
performed by himself and his colleagues at the festival called
Galaxia.
70
TrGF 4 Test. a 1.90–1 k mikroÓ ¡mitic©ou £ lxew mi Âlon qopoie±n
pr»wpon. The same was said of Homer: Sd Il. 8.85 dein» tin í Omhro
kaª di mi lxew Âlon t¼n ndra hma©nein.
23
parekeuamno lampr¼n ¬mtion kaª tejanwmno parelqÜn

e«pe±n “ ö W ndre ìAqhna±oi, qÅomen o¬ prutnei [t ¬er] t¦i
Mhtrª tän qeän t Galxia (gr xia V), kaª t ¬er kal, kaª
Ëme± dceqe t gaq.”
He steps forward wearing a smart white cloak, with a crown on his
head, and says ‘Men of Athens, my colleagues and I celebrated the
Milk-Feast with sacrifices to the Mother of the Gods. The sacrifices
were propitious. We beg you to accept your blessings’ (XXI.11).
He asks for this task because it gives him his brief moment of lime-
light, a solo performance, garlanded and brightly robed, with a
solemn and impressive script. It was not a demanding speech to
make, since it was composed entirely of traditional phrases, as
we can see from a similar announcement in Demosthenes:
ö W ndre ìAqhna±oi . . . qÅamen täi Diª täi wt¦ri kaª t¦i ìAqhni
kaª t¦i N©khi, kaª ggonen kal kaª wtria taÓq ì Ëm±n t ¬er.
qÅamen d kaª t¦i Peiqo± kaª t¦i Mhtrª tän qeän kaª täi ìAp»llwni,
kaª kallieroÓmen kaª taÓta. §n d ì Ëm±n kaª t to± lloi qeo±
tuqnq ì ¬r ì jal¦ kaª bbaia kaª kal kaª wtria. dceq ì oÔn
par tän qeän did»ntwn tgaq.
Men of Athens . . . we sacrificed to Zeus the Saviour and Athena and
Victory, and these sacrifices were propitious and salvatory for you. And
we sacrificed to Persuasion and the Mother of the Gods and Apollo,
and we had propitious sacrifices here too. And the sacrifices made to
the other gods were safe and secure and propitious and salvatory for
you. Therefore we beg you to accept the blessings which the gods give
(Prooem. 54).
For all the community of phrases, the speeches are different in
style. The speaker in Demosthenes has sacrificed to a multitude
of gods: to so many that he divides his list into three parts, whose
language and structure he varies. The Mikrojil»timo has only
a single sacrifice to report, and his report is accordingly barer.
This sacrifice was held for the Galaxia, which ‘seems to have
been a tranquil and somewhat unimportant affair’.71 We may
71
R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford 1996) 192.
24
suspect that the occasion which he chooses to report is not the

one which would best have served his wish to be impressive,
and that the mention of the Galaxia, which takes its name from
a noun meaning a barley porridge cooked in milk, deflates the
solemnity of the traditional phrases. The man himself, however,
is satisfied with his performance. For the sketch has a wonderful
last sentence:
kaª taÓta pagge©la pelqÜn (piÜn V) o«kde dihgaqai (d-
o«- V) t¦i autoÓ gunaikª Þ kaq ì Ëperboln hÉhmrei (eÉhmere±n V).
After making this report he goes home and tells his wife that he had
an extremely successful day (XXI.11).
This brings to mind the deluded Harpagus in Herodotus: ‘He
went home . . . in his delight he told his wife what had happened’
(1.119.1 –2). It was a stroke of genius on the part of each author
to bring in the wife to listen to her husband’s naiveté.
Here is the essence of the problem. We often find that our
text of Theophrastus exhibits qualities of language and style
very different from those which he is capable of achieving, that
it really is obscure and inelegant, that it is not Greek at its most
limpid. Let us concede that a writer may be inelegant at one
moment, elegant at another, at one moment obscure, at another
limpid. But I should not expect that a writer who is capable
of writing with consummate elegance and limpidity will readily
be satisfied with inelegance and obscurity. And so, when our
text exhibits these faults, we have a right to be dissatisfied and
suspicious.
(viii) Literary influence

The Characters were imitated by Ariston of Keos in the late third
century bc.72 In the first century bc Philodemus quotes V and
def. II, and a papyrus attests parts of VII and VIII.73 Thereafter,
until they reappear in the medieval manuscripts, the only trace
72 73
See pp. 9–10. See pp. 37–8, 50, and on def. II.
25
of them is a papyrus of the third century ad, which attests an

abbreviated version of parts of XXV and XXVI.74 It has been
claimed that they are imitated by Petronius75 and Lucian.76
These claims cannot be substantiated.77 And when Diogenes
Laertius lists them in the third century, he is merely reproducing
an entry from a much earlier catalogue.78 They are next men-
tioned by Eustathius79 and Tzetzes (Chil. 9.934–5) in the twelfth
century, after the date of our earliest manuscripts.80
It is not until the seventeenth century, in England and France,
that the name of Theophrastus becomes inseparable from the
genre of character writing. Some account of the impulse which
he gave to the genre may be found in Jebb (Introduction § ii),
R. G. Ussher, ‘Some Characters of Athens, Rome, and England’,
G&R 13 (1966) 64–78, W. Anderson, Theophrastus, The Character
Sketches, translated, with Notes and Introductory Essays (Kent State
1970) xxi–xxxii, 133–53, Rusten 34–41. For further study the
following are especially valuable: G. S. Gordon, ‘Theophrastus
and his imitators’, in Gordon (ed.), English Literature and the Classics
(Oxford 1912) 49–86, R. Aldington, A Book of ‘Characters’, from
Theophrastus; Joseph Hall, Sir Thomas Overbury, Nicolas Breton, John
Earle, Thomas Fuller, and other English Authors; Jean de La Bruyère,
Vauvenargues, and other French Authors (London 1924), B. Boyce, The
74
See p. 50.
75
M. Rosenblüth, Beiträge zur Quellenkunde von Petrons Satiren (Berlin 1909) 56–
62, O. Raith, Petronius ein Epikureer (Nuremberg 1963) 20–7, P. G. Walsh, The
Roman Novel (Cambridge 1970) 133–4, D. F. Leão, ‘Trimalquião à luz dos
Caracteres de Teofrasto’, Humanitas 49 (1997) 147–67. But J. P. Sullivan, The
Satyricon of Petronius: A Literary Study (London 1968) 138–9, is suitably sceptical.
76
M. D. Macleod, ‘Lucian’s knowledge of Theophrastus’, Mnemosyne 27 (1974)
75–6, B. Baldwin, ‘Lucian and Theophrastus’, Mnemosyne 30 (1977) 174–6.
77
See on III.3, IV.9, VII.3, def. XXVII. Llera Fueyo (n. 23 above) prudently
stops short of concluding that Herodas was acquainted with them. F. Titch-
ener, ‘Plutarch, Aristotle and the Characters of Theophrastus’, in A. Pérez
Jiménez et al. (edd.), Plutarco, Platón y Aristóteles (Madrid 1999) 675–82, fails
to establish that Plutarch was acquainted with them.
78 79
See n. 11 above. See pp. 6, 19.
80
Lane Fox 127–8, in claiming that they were read by St. John Climacus
(6th–7th cent.), misunderstands (and misdates) Immisch (1923) 2.
26
DAT E
Theophrastan Character in England to 1642 (Harvard 1947), J. W.

Smeed, The Theophrastan ‘Character’: The History of a Literary Genre
(Oxford 1985).
III DAT E
The main contributions: C. Cichorius in Bechert et al. (1897)
lvii–lxii; F. Rühl, ‘Die Abfassungszeit von Theophrasts Charak-
teren’, RhM 53 (1898) 324–7; A. L. Boegehold, ‘The date of
Theophrastus’ Characters’, TAPhA 90 (1959) 15–19; Stein 21 –45;
R. J. Lane Fox, PCPhS 42 (1996) 134–9. Three dates are in ques-
tion: dramatic date, date of composition, date of publication.
I begin with two sketches, VIII and XXIII, which allude to
historical persons and events.
In XXIII the ìAlazÛn claims that he campaigned with
Alexander (§3), that he has received three invitations from
Antipater to visit him in Macedonia, and that he has declined
the offer of permission to export Macedonian timber duty-free
through fear of attack by sycophants (§4). He also claims that
he made voluntary contributions to needy citizens ‘in the grain-
shortage’ (§5).
Antipater was appointed by Alexander as his military deputy
in Macedonia in 334, and his appointment was confirmed after
Alexander’s death ( June 323). His victory over the Greek states
in the Lamian war (autumn 323 to autumn 322) left him master
of Athens, on which he imposed Phocion, an oligarchic consti-
tution, and a Macedonian garrison. He died in early autumn
319.81 Serious shortages of grain are attested in 330/29, 328/7,
323/2, and there may have been others in the decade 330–20.
The shortage in 328/7 appears to have been particularly seri-
ous.82 The dramatic date therefore falls between 330 and 319.
Cichorius asserted without argument that Alexander is dead.
He then argued that the only occasion when Antipater stayed
81
For the date see R. M. Errington, Hermes 105 (1977) 488, A. B. Bosworth,
Chiron 22 (1992) 59.
82
See the commentary for fuller discussion.
27
long enough in Macedonia to be imagined as issuing three invi-

tations was between early 320, when he returned from Asia
(where the dynastic intrigues of Perdiccas had called him), and
his death in 319.
The ìAlazÛn does not explicitly say that Alexander is dead.
And Stein argued that, even while Alexander was alive, Antipa-
ter, as his deputy in Europe, was a figure of such standing that
an invitation from him makes a suitable object of boasting.
Stein suggested three possible dramatic dates: (i) between the
end of the grain-shortage (he dated this 326) and the beginning
of the Lamian war (autumn 323); (ii) between the end of the
Lamian war (autumn 322) and the beginning of the Aetolian war
(he dated this summer 321)83 ; (iii) between his return from Asia
(he dated this early 319)84 and his death (early autumn 319).
Lane Fox argued for a dramatic date in Alexander’s lifetime,
because ‘friends of Macedon were politically safe from 322 to
320’, whereas, before that time, ‘acceptance of them [sc. letters
of invitation from Antipater] risked attack by sycophants’. This
is mistaken. The ìAlazÛn fears attack not for accepting letters
of invitation to visit Macedonia but for accepting a more com-
promising invitation, to export Macedonian timber duty-free.
The importation of goods from an enemy state was an offence
inviting prosecution.85 If Macedonia were the enemy, the issue
would be clear-cut: he would be a legitimate object of attack.
In 322–319, when Macedonia is not an enemy but an ally, he
would be free to accept the invitation. He declines it Âpw mhd ì
83
Stein 37, following R. M. Errington, JHS 90 (1970) 76; similarly J. D.
Grainger, The League of the Aitolians (Leiden etc. 1999) 62–5. The conventional
date is late 322: Hammond in N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank, A
History of Macedonia 3 (Oxford 1988) 115, 120 n. 1, A. B. Bosworth, CQ 43
(1993) 426 n. 34.
84
Stein 37–9, following B. Gullath and L. Schober in H. Kalcyk, B. Gullath
and A. Graeber (edd.), Studien zur Alten Geschichte, Siegfried Lauffer zum 70.
Geburtstag . . . dargebracht 1 (Rome 1986) 336. Alternative dates: autumn 320
(Errington (1977) 487), spring 320 (Hammond 128–9, 618, Bosworth (1992)
59–60, (1993) 255).
85
See the commentary on XXIII.4.
28
DAT E
Ëj ì n¼ ukojanthq¦i, ‘so that not even one person can bring
a trumped up charge against him’. It suits him to suppose that
there is still the risk of a prosecution prompted by malice and
jealousy. He is living in a fantasy world, and he has to find some
reason for declining an offer that was never made.
On the most natural reading, Alexander is dead and Antipater
is the most important man in the world. And this is what Antipa-
ter was to become, when, with Perdiccas dead, he returned from
Asia in 320 or 319. A dramatic date of 319 is therefore more likely
than any other. And since familiarity with Antipater ceases to be
a topical subject for boasting as soon as he is dead (early autumn
319), the date of composition is unlikely to be much later than
319.
In VIII the Logopoi» claims that Polyperchon and the king

have recently defeated Cassander, who has been captured.
Antipater designated Polyperchon, a general of Alexander, to
succeed him as military commander in Greece, in preference to
his own son Cassander. The ensuing struggle between Polyper-
chon and Cassander continued until 309. Polyperchon offered
the Greek cities autonomy in return for their support. The Athe-
nians executed Phocion and briefly returned to democracy in
318. Cassander captured Athens and placed it under the control
of Demetrius of Phaleron in 317. He invaded Macedonia, per-
haps in 316, and defeated Polyperchon. Polyperchon invaded
Macedonia in 309, but made peace with Cassander.
There are three candidates for the title of king during this
period (319–309):
(i) Philip III Arrhidaeus,86 mentally impaired half-brother of
Alexander, proclaimed Alexander’s successor by the army at
Babylon, a cipher in the hands successively of Perdiccas, Antipa-
ter and Polyperchon, by whom he was murdered in 317.
86
H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage 2 (Munich 1926)
no. 781.
29
(ii) Alexander IV,87 posthumous son of Alexander and

Roxane, elevated by Perdiccas to be joint ruler with Philip III,
captured by Cassander in 317/16 or 316/15 88 and murdered by
him in 310 or 309.89
(iii) Heracles,90 bastard son of Alexander and Barsine, pro-
claimed king by Polyperchon in 310 but murdered by him at the
prompting of Cassander in 309.91
The purported defeat of Cassander distresses the ruling party
at Athens (§8). Therefore the ruling party are pro-Macedonian:
the oligarchs either under Phocion or under Demetrius of
Phaleron. The outer chronological limits are therefore: (i)
autumn/winter 319/18 (when Polyperchon opened hostilities
with Cassander, by offering autonomy to the Greek cities)92 to
spring 318 (fall of Phocion);93 (ii) early 317/summer 317 (begin-
ning of the oligarchy of Demetrius of Phaleron)94 to 309. The
place of the battle is not specified. Since the news was brought
to the ruling party four days ago, but is not yet generally known
(§8), it must have taken place a good distance away; since the
messenger came from Macedonia, it must have taken place in
or near Macedonia.
If the battle took place during the oligarchy of Phocion, the
king may be either Philip (favoured by Cichorius) or Alexander.
Both kings were in the charge of Polyperchon (D.S. 18.48.4, 49.4,
55.1). Alexander, a mere infant, is less likely than Philip to be
described as sharing a military victory with him. But it may
be doubted whether Philip, any more than Alexander, would be
87 88
Kaerst, ‘Alexandros (11)’, RE i.1 (1893) 1434–5. See n. 99.
89
For 309, Hammond 165–7; for 310 (the traditional date), Stein, Prometheus
19 (1993) 150–3, Bosworth in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (edd.),
Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford 2000) 214 n. 32.
90 91
Berve no. 353. Stein (1993) 150–3.
92
J. M. Williams, Hermes 112 (1984) 303, Gullath and Schober 338–47,
Bosworth (1992) 67.
93
Williams 300–5, Gullath and Schober 338–47, Bosworth (1992) 68–70; not
summer/autumn 318 (Errington (1977) 489–92).
94
Errington (1977) 494 (July/August), Gullath and Schober 376 (August),
Bosworth (1992) 71 (‘early months of 317’).
30
DAT E
designated as ‘the king’, at a time when he is only one king of two.

The duality of the kings is widely and consistently recognised in
both inscriptions and literary texts.95 Stein claimed that it was
in the name of Philip alone that Polyperchon offered autonomy
to the Greek cities, on the evidence of D.S. 18.56.2 F©lippo ¾
¡mtero patr, 7 F©lippo . . . ¾ patr, i.e. Philip II. This is
mistaken. The offer was made in the name of both kings (18.55.4
tän bailwn, 56.2 t¦ baile©a e« ¡m kaqhkoÅh). The
designation F©lippo ¾ patr embraces not only the father
of the one but also the grandfather of the other.96 Lane Fox, as
well as emphasising the duality of the kings, questioned whether
Cassander could have fought a battle in Macedonia during this
period. Soon after the death of Antipater (early autumn 319)
Cassander left for the Hellespont, and ‘people in Athens would
know that Cassander was no longer in Macedonia’. If we need
to circumvent this argument, we can simply locate the battle in
Thrace.
If the battle took place during the oligarchy of Demetrius of
Phaleron, there are three options:
(i) It is possible (but it has been disputed) that Cassander
invaded Macedonia in 317.97 If he did, and the battle took place
during this invasion, we have the same difficulty over ‘the king’,
at least in the earlier part of the year. Philip was murdered by
Polyperchon in autumn 317,98 after his wife Eurydice, usurping
his authority, aligned herself with Cassander. After his death,
Alexander remains the sole candidate for king.
95
C. Habicht, ‘Literarische und epigraphische Überlieferung zur Geschichte
Alexanders und seiner ersten Nachfolger’, in Akten des VI. Internationalen Kon-
gresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik, München 1972 (Vestigia 17, Munich
1973) 367–77, Hammond 138 n. 2, Bosworth (1993) 420–7, Lane Fox 137.
96
For a more sophisticated explanation see Habicht 375–7.
97
In favour, Errington (1977) 483, 494 (late autumn 317), Hammond 137–8,
Bosworth (1992) 64, 71 –3, (2000) 210 n. 12 (early 317); against, Gullath
and Schober 359–76; sceptical, Stein 23–30. A dramatic date during this
invasion is contemplated by Hammond 138 n. 1, Bosworth (1992) 72 n. 84.
98
Errington (1977) 402, Gullath and Schober 336–8, Hammond 140,
Bosworth (1992) 56.
31
(ii) Cassander invaded Macedonia, defeated Polyperchon, and

captured the remaining king, Alexander IV, in either 317/16 or
316/15.99 During the one or other period, a victory by Polyper-
chon and ‘the king’ would be a plausible fiction. The objection
of Cichorius that the king is too young, at the age of six or seven,
to be linked with Polyperchon as winner of a military victory is
very weak. It is uncertain how strong is the objection that a boy
of that age would not be referred to baldly as ‘the king’.100
(iii) In 310/9 Polyperchon summoned the seventeen-year
old Heracles from Pergamum and proclaimed him king (D.S.
20.20.1 –2). He confronted Cassander in Macedonia, came to
terms with him, and murdered Heracles (D.S. 20.28.1 –3). Cicho-
rius objected that in an Athens governed by Cassander’s ally
Demetrius of Phaleron the pretender would not be referred to
as ‘the king’. But Cassander himself refers to him as ‘the king’
(D.S. 20.28.2).101
Of these options the third, advocated by Lane Fox, is the most
attractive.102 But I do not rule out the second (317/16 or 316/15).
Date of composition would be soon after the dramatic date, since
interest would fade as topicality faded. Against the earliest date,
in the oligarchy of Phocion, the anomaly of a reference to ‘the
king’, when there were two joint kings, is a serious obstacle.103
By contrast with VIII, the dramatic date of XXVI (the

ìOligarcik») falls in a period of democracy. The theoretical
99
For 317/16, Hammond 141 –2, Bosworth (1992) 61 –2; for 316/15, Errington
(1977) 488, 495, Gullath and Schober 377, Stein 31 –4.
100 101
See Stein 21. Cf. Rühl 325, Stein 21.
102
The argument which he builds on §9 (‘In 319 his era of strength was still in
the future’, ‘By 310/9, Cassander had indeed grown strong’) is precarious,
since the text is incurably corrupt at the vital point. See also Stein 22 n. 4.
103
The false report (D.S. 19.23) of the death of Cassander and the triumph of
Polyperchon issued by Eumenes, Cassander’s adversary in Asia Minor, in
317 or 316 (Errington (1977) 483, Hammond 141, Bosworth (1992) 62–4,
(2000) 210, Stein (1993) 146–50, Lane Fox 136), comparable though it is,
has no bearing on the date of VIII.
32
DAT E
possibilities are: (i) before 322 (advent of Phocion); (ii) 318/17

(between Phocion and Demetrius of Phaleron); (iii) after 307
(fall of Demetrius). The last of these is excluded by the mention
of liturgies in §5. These were abolished by Demetrius and never
reinstated.104
In §2 the people are debating t©na täi rconti proai-
rontai (pro- V) t¦ pomp¦ toÆ unepimelhomnou,
‘whom they will appoint in addition to help the archon with
the procession’. The eponymous archon organised the annual
procession at the Great Dionysia with the help of ten pimelhta©.
According to [Arist.] Ath. 56.4 these were originally elected by a
show of hands in the Assembly and contributed to the expenses
of the procession from their own pockets, but afterwards were
chosen by lot, one from each tribe, and received an allowance.
The change from election to lot occurred after 349/8, the date
of D. 21.15 keleÅwn aut¼n e« DionÅia ceirotone±n pimel-
htn.105 Rhodes has suggested that the change was ‘a part of
the reorganisation of Athens’ festivals in the Lycurgan period’
and ‘will have been very recent indeed when A.P. was written’;106
104
W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London 1911) 55–8, 99, Pickard-
Cambridge, DFA 91 –3, Stein 40 n. 2, P. Wilson, The Athenian Institution
of the Khoregia (Cambridge 2000) 270–2, S. V. Tracy in Fortenbaugh and
Schütrumpf (n. 6 above) 342, H. B. Gottschalk, ibid. 371. See the commen-
tary on XXIII.6.
105
MacDowell ad loc. suggests that the change occurred before 328/7, on
the evidence of IG ii2 354.15–16 o¬ lac»nte pimelht[a]ª t¦ eÉkom©a
t¦ per[ª] t¼ qatron. That these overseers of good order in the theatre
are identical with the officials who are responsible for the procession (an
assumption shared by Wilson 24, but not by Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 70)
is unlikely. Perhaps the overseers of good order are the pimeloÅmenoi of
the Dionysia mentioned by D. 4.35 (351 bc). These, who are described as
appointed by lot, cannot be the pimelhta© of the procession, who were still
being elected at this time. We even hear of elected pimelhta© who were
responsible for keeping dramatic choruses in order (Suda E 2466, DFA 91).
Wilson 159–60, again failing to distinguish these from the others, is wrong
to accuse D. 21.17 of misrepresentation.
106
P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford
2
1993) 628.
33
that it occurred ‘perhaps in the mid 330’s’.107 The date of Ath.

56.4 is uncertain. Rhodes has suggested that an ‘original version’
of Ath. was composed in the late 330s, and that additions were
incorporated in the mid 320s (with 322 as the latest possible
date).108 There is nothing to indicate that Ath. 56.4 was among
the later additions.109
Since Theophrastus specifies election, either (i) he refers to
a time before the procedure changed, or (ii) he refers to a time
when there had been a change back to the original procedure,
or (iii) he ignores the change.
Of these alternatives, (i) implies a date not later than c. 335,
if Ath. 56.4 is dated in the late 330s; if Ath. 56.4 was added
in the mid 320s, and the change occurred in the early 320s,
a date c. 330 becomes possible. For (ii), there is inscriptional
evidence that a change back to election did occur: certainly by
186/5 bc (IG ii2 896.34–5), possibly by 282/1 bc (IG ii2 668
= SIG3 388.13–15, 23).110 Boegehold suggested that it occurred
during the oligarchy of 322–318: lot is democratic, and oligarchs
prefer election.111 If this were right, the dramatic date would be
318/17. Stein favoured (iii): Theophrastus ignores the change
through oversight (historical accuracy was not crucial in a matter
of this kind). In this case, the dramatic date might fall either
before 322 or in 318/17.
The treatment of Ath. 56.4 by Lane Fox is unconvincing. He
argues: (i) That the procession to which Theophrastus refers
need not be the Dionysiac procession. This requires us to believe
that there was another procession, again organised by the archon
with ten pimelhta©, about which Ath. is silent. This is improb-
able, since Ath. goes on to mention two further processions
for which he was responsible, and appears to be giving us
a complete list. (ii) That proairontai means ‘choose’ not
107 108 109

Rhodes 52. Rhodes 51 –8. Rhodes 52, 628.
110
As Dittenberger observes (621 n. 3), not one per tribe, so possibly elected.
111
Cf. Stein 41 n. 3.
34
DAT E
‘elect’, and the question is how many will be chosen, with-

out specification of method, election or lot. This is impossi-
ble, since t©na indicates identity not quantity. (iii) That there
is ‘no evidence that the procedure changed back’. One, at
least, of the inscriptions cited above provides that evidence. (iv)
That ten pimelhta©, the right number for the overseers of the
Dionysiac procession, ‘reinforce respect for his eye for Athe-
nian detail’. This is a strange argument to use in support of the
argument that Theophrastus is not referring to the Dionysiac
procession.
Lane Fox argues more persuasively that the manner in which
the ìOligarcik» is depicted does not suit the two later periods.
‘He is given no Macedonian connections and no words about
recent political upheavals.’ In 318/17 and after 307 oligarchs
‘had just had power, could look back to Macedonian support and
would grumble at the harsh reprisals of a period when demo-
cratic fervour ran extremely high’. In any case, we may add,
the period after 307 is ruled out by the reference to liturgies.112
The manner of his depiction, Lane Fox observes, suits the ear-
lier period. ‘Our Oligarchic Man belongs in a stabler world, in
a democracy against which the grumbles are those which might
have been heard way back in the age of Alcibiades.’
A dramatic date before 322 is very plausible. Date of com-
position is indeterminable. Lane Fox places date of composi-
tion, no less than dramatic date, before 322. ‘If Theophrastus
wrote him up any later, he would have been characterizing his
man against a setting which had passed.’ Perhaps this is to take
the ìOligarcik» too seriously. His vices are conventional and
his targets traditional. Even in the 320s he cuts a comic fig-
ure. Men such as he, upper-crust out-of-touch reactionaries, are
material for caricature, whatever the current political climate.113
Like Stein, I do not exclude the possibility of a later date of
112
See p. 33.
113
For further comment on his type see the Introductory Note to XXVI.
35
composition, even during a period of oligarchy. I do not even

exclude composition in the 330s, for a reason which I shall give
at the conclusion to this section.
A date before 322 has been suggested for other sketches

too. Boegehold observed that Theophrastus regularly refers to
judicial activity as an ordinary feature of everyday life (I.2,
VI.8, VII.8, XI.7, XII.4, 5, XIII.11, XIV.3, XVII.8, XXVI.4,
XXVII.9, XXIX.2, 5, 6). During the oligarchy of Phocion the
qualification for citizenship (and so for attendance at the Assem-
bly and service on juries) was 2,000 drachmas, under Demetrius
1,000. Boegehold inferred that these sketches were written dur-
ing a period of stable democracy. By the same token one might
infer that those sketches which casually refer to meetings of
the Assembly (IV.2, VII.7, XIII.2, XXI.11, XXII.3, XXIV.5,
XXVI.2, 4, XXIX.5) were also written before 322.114 But cau-
tion is needed. There were some 21,000 qualified citizens under
Demetrius of Phaleron,115 and the courts and the Assembly con-
tinued to function.116 We cannot say that the dramatic date of
any of these sketches is incompatible with this period. Much
less can we say that they could not have been written during it.
Again, the allusions to liturgies (XXII.2, 5, XXIII.6, XXVI.5)
set the dramatic date before their abolition by Demetrius.117 But
they say nothing about date of composition.118
My conclusions are these. (i) There is no consistent dramatic
date. One sketch (VIII) is set during a period of oligarchy; many
of the others are set during a period of democracy. (ii) It is
114
Other passages which imply a democratic setting are XXVIII.6
(dhmokrat©a as a soubriquet for slander) and XXIX.5 (‘watchdog of the
d¦mo’), as Rühl observed.
115
Hammond 137.
116
A. L. Boegehold, The Athenian Agora, xxviii: The Lawcourts at Athens (Princeton
1995) 41, S. V. Tracy in Fortenbaugh and Schütrumpf (n. 6 above) 338–9.
M. Gagarin, ibid. 359–61, arguing that there was a significant decline in
the use of the courts under Demetrius, relies heavily on the unargued
assumption that Theophrastus’s courts belong to the 320s.
117 118
See p. 33. See Stein 42–3.
36
TRANSMISSION
impossible to assign a single date of composition to the whole

collection. (iii) Date of publication is indeterminable.
The question when Theophrastus wrote the sketches and
the question when (if ever) he published them are inseparable
from the question why he wrote them. If (as suggested above,
pp. 15–16) he wrote them as incidental material to illustrate his
lectures, he may have written them over a long period, poten-
tially throughout the whole of his career as teacher. Their unifor-
mity of style and structure suggests that he may have reworked
them for publication. Lane Fox (141) puts it well: ‘Written for
like-minded readers, the sketches were meant to amuse, not
teach. If they were first shared with friends and pupils, they could
easily grow up piecemeal, being increased as the years passed.
We do not know what publication meant, but survival from
a personal collection after Theophrastus’ death is an obvious
possibility.’119
IV T R A N S M I S S I O N
(i) Preliminaries
Theophrastus composed the sketches in the later part of the
fourth century. In what form and at what date they were pub-
lished we do not know.120 A century later they were imitated by
Ariston of Keos.121 They were quoted by Philodemus in the first
century bc.122 Before the time of Philodemus they had already
suffered interpolation: the definitions at least had been added.123
They had also suffered serious corruption. For Theophrastus
cannot have designed V.6–10 to follow V.1 –5. Yet the papyrus
119
Others who have contemplated an extended period of composition are
Rühl 327, H. Reich, Der Mimus (Berlin 1903) 309 n. 1, Regenbogen 1510–11,
M. Brozek, ‘De Theophrasti Characterum ueritate ac fide obseruatiuncula’,
in K. F. Kumaniecki (ed.), Charisteria Thaddaeo Sinko . . . oblata (Warsaw 1951)
67–70.
120 121
See the section on Date (pp. 27–37, esp. 36–7). See pp. 9–10.
122 123
See p. 50. See p. 17.
37
of Philodemus (P1 ), like the medieval manuscripts, presents

V.1 –10 as a continuous text.
The general fabric of the text transmitted by the papyrus of
Philodemus, and of the shorter portions of VII and VIII trans-
mitted by another papyrus of the first century bc (P2 ), is not
essentially different from that of the medieval manuscripts. The
prooemium and the epilogues appended to nine sketches were
added much later. But, those additions (and other interpola-
tions) apart, our collection as its stands reflects a version of the
text which had come into existence by the first century bc.124 It
is no longer possible to argue, as was argued before the papyri
were known, that it owes its form to large-scale editorial activity
in the imperial or Byzantine period.125
The archetype of the medieval manuscripts, containing 30
sketches, was divided for copying, by chance or design, at a
date unknown (not later than the eleventh century), into two
halves. One half (containing I–XV) is represented by our oldest
manuscripts, AB (tenth or eleventh century); the other (XVI–
XXX), by V (thirteenth century). These manuscripts are cor-
pora of rhetorical treatises. The text of Theophrastus will have
been added to the prototype of the corpus in the early Byzan-
tine period.126 It may have become divided because an ancestor
of AB lacked space for the whole, or because a half was felt
sufficient; or through accident.127
124
For a misguided attempt to link the early history of the text to the alleged
fate of the ‘lost’ philosophical works of Theophrastus and Aristotle see
n. 10 above.
125
So Diels, Theophrastea (1883) and his edition (1909) v–viii.
126
Immisch (1897) xxviii–xxxvi, id. Philologus 57 (1898) 204–6, H. Rabe,
‘Rhetoren-Corpora’, RhM 67 (1912) 321 –57, E. Matelli, ‘Libro e testo nella
tradizione dei Caratteri di Teofrasto’, S&C 13 (1989) 329–86, Fortenbaugh
in W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. C. Mirhady (edd.), Peripatetic Rhetoric after
Aristotle (New Brunswick and London 1994) 18. See n. 42 above.
127
Another rhetorical corpus, Par. gr. 1741 (10th cent.), is said by its index (14th
cent.) to have once had the Characters, on pages now missing. How many
it had and when they were lost are questions which cannot be answered.
38
TRANSMISSION
In addition to these three, 68 later manuscripts are

recorded.128 The majority contain I–XV; a few contain either
I–XXIII or I–XXVIII.129 Immisch (1897) classified these (or
such as were known to him) into three groups, according to
numerical content: C = manuscripts with I–XXVIII, D I–
XXIII, E I–XV.
Whether CDE preserve any trace of a tradition independent
of ABV has long been debated. Cobet pronounced an uncom-
promising verdict: ‘omnem crisin Characterum Theophrasti
tribus tantum Codicibus niti: omne enim emendandi praesid-
ium et fundamentum in capitibus XV prioribus esse in duobus
vetustissimis Codicibus Parisinis [AB], in posterioribus capitibus
XV crisin pendere totam a Codice Palatino-Vaticano [V]:
reliquos autem libros ad unum omnes flocci non esse facien-
dos et criticam rem impedire tantum et quisquiliis nil profuturis
onerare.’130 Diels argued vigorously in his support: true or plau-
sible readings were lucky slips or medieval conjectures.131 Many
have remained unconvinced.132 What scribe, protested Pasquali,
For a conspectus of views on the former question see Matelli 367 n. 110,
who suggests that it had room for all 30. The lost text has been claimed
as a possible source of E (P. Wendland, Philologus 57 (1898) 104–5), of CD
(Immisch, ibid. 205 n. 26), of Marc. gr. 513 (no. 64 Wilson) (Matelli 364
n. 101), and of V (Matelli 378). Appropriate caution is expressed by C.
Landi, SIFC 8 (1900) 97–8, and Diels (1909) xxv (‘Sed ecce terret nos in
ABV solis confisos ex inferis citata umbra codicis celeberrimi et vetustissimi
Parisini’, with splendid facetiousness).
128
N. G. Wilson, ‘The Manuscripts of Theophrastus’, Scriptorium 16 (1962)
96–102.
129
For brevity, here and in what follows, ‘I’ stands for ‘I plus prooemium’.
130
Mnemosyne 8 (1859) 311. Similarly, Mnemosyne 2 (1874) 34.
131
Diels (1883) 11 –15, (1909) ix–xiv. Similarly Wendland (1898) 103–12.
132
For example, Immisch (1897) xl–xlvii, (1923) iii–iv; Pasquali (1919) 16–17 =
(1986) 90–1, (1926) 91 –2 = (1986) 850–2, id. Storia della Tradizione e Crit-
ica del Testo (Florence 2 1952) 29–30; Edmonds (1929) 11 –30; Navarre
(1931 ) 7–9, 30–1 (contra (1920) 1 –2, (1924) xxxv–xli); De Falco (1956)
xvii–xxii; Steinmetz (1960) 23–38 (arguing only for the independence of
CD from V in XVI–XXVIII); Torraca (1974) 71, (1990) 20–2, (1994b)
614–16.
39
would have the wit to replace t©mie with the slave-name T©bie
at IX.3, or an unexceptionable ja©neqai with the more subtly
suggestive Ëpoja©neqai at IV.4?
In 1992 Markus Stein sketched a plausible picture of the
medieval tradition, using only the piecemeal evidence already
published.133 Two years later I. E. Stefanis published his inves-
tigation of the later manuscripts, which he had collated almost
in their entirety.134 His investigation confirms that the picture
sketched by Stein is in all essentials right. Now that we can see
the relationships of the later manuscripts to each other and to
ABV, and the precise distribution of variants, we can establish
(what Cobet and Diels inferred but could not prove) that no
later manuscript or group of manuscripts had access to a tradi-
tion independent of ABV.
The medieval tradition provides plentiful evidence of scribal
interference. For example, the version of XVI–XXVIII in C and
of XVI–XXIII in D is an abridged version of what is in V, and
the abridgement did not happen by accident.135 A reading like
Ëpoja©neqai, if it is not an idle blunder, is an idle embellish-
ment.136 A reading like T©bie is evidence that scribes existed who
thought about what they wrote and remembered what they had
read.137
133
Stein (1992) 3–20. The lengthy survey by Steinmetz (1960) 1 –59 marked
no advance.
134
‘Oi recentiores twn Caraktrwn tou Qeojrtou’, EEThess 4 (1994)
63–121.
135
For the abbreviator’s method see Ilberg (1897) xlvii–li, Stein 10–11.
136
Cf., above all, XI.2 de±xai t¼ a«do±on] ËpodeiknÅein t a«do±a M. Other
intruded compounds: VII.10 <pro>lbhi two descendants of A (Tor-
raca (1974) 90); XVI.11 <pro>eÅceqai CD; XVIII.2 <pi>pmp- M;
XX.1 <peri>labe±n CD; XX.2 <ul>lal¦i M; XXI.3 <p>agagÛn
CD; XXII.8 <k>plÓnai V; XXV.5 <po>obe±n some members
of C (Torraca (1994b) 611); XXVII.10 <kat>ocoÅmeno V; XXX.19
<pro>pmyhi V.
137
See Diels (1883) 18–19, (1909) xxii, Stein 8–9. For a list of true or plausible
readings in CDE in I–XV see Stefanis 118–19.
40
TRANSMISSION
(ii) The tradition in a nutshell

(See the stemma, p. 51)
When the archetype () became divided (by way of w) into
two halves, the half which contained I–XV generated two lines,
issuing in A and B,138 which generated (by way of a and b) a few
descendants of their own; the half which contained XVI–XXX
issued in V.
A and B have, in addition to I–XV, an abridged version
of XXX. 5–16 (10, 14, 15 are lacking) appended to XI.139 We
may surmise that a detached page from an abridged version
of I–XXX (e) was incorporated among the pages of the ances-
tor (y) of AB, whether by accident or by design.140 That the
work was prone to abridgement, even in antiquity, is shown
by P3 .
B, by way of b, generated a further line, issuing in d, the
source of CDE (which henceforth I shall re-designate as cde)141 in
138
When A and B disagree, B is far more often right than wrong. Most of B’s
errors (against A) are trifling: I.5 ran- A: rwn- B; II.10 diayiqur©zein A:
yiq- B; III.3 dmippo A: -ipo B; IV.11 t¦ A: toÓ B; VI.3 kwmikä A: kom-
B; VI.5 pornobok¦ai A: -eÓai B; VI.8 t A: ta± B; VI.9 dracm¦ A:
drag- B; VI.9 mpolmato A: -pwl- B; VIII.4 paragegonÜ A: -¼ B;
X.3 kÅlika A: ko©l- B; XI.2 naurmeno A: -»meno B; XI.8 Ýywnhmna
A: ½y- B; XIV.12 trwn A: trww B; XV.6 kou©w A: k- B; XV.8
dein¼ A: -¼n B; XV.9 -me±nai A: -m¦nai B; XXX.16 kataleip»mena A:
-lip- B. But some are more serious: IV.11 e« om. B; VII.7 e²pa A: e²pen
B; IX.5 Þ om. B; X.8 kpou A (unless k»pou: Stefanis 66 n. 3): kopoÓ
B; XIII.9 malakizomnwi A: kallwpiz- B. These last prove that A is not a
copy of B.
139
The papyri show that in I–XV (where V is absent) the text of AB is not
abridged.
140
Stein 16–18 (accident), Stefanis 105 n. 80 (design). AB and V often disagree
in XXX. 5–16. Diels (1909) xix–xx and Stein 16, 263 claim that AB are
generally superior to V. I find them more evenly balanced in good and
bad.
141
E is not a homogeneous group, since it includes the direct descendants of A
and B; e designates a group which is homogeneous. I use cde indifferently to
indicate the groups or their archetypes, avoiding unnecessary duplication
of symbols (Stefanis uses CDe for the groups, kqh for their archetypes).
41
I–XV.142 c also acquired XVI–XXVIII from a slightly abridged

version (z) of V.143 d acquired I–XV from e144 and XVI–XXIII
from c.145
One manuscript is unique in content and derivation. M (the
Munich Epitome), a radically abridged version of I–XXI, is
142
That d is derived from the same source as the direct descendants of
B is proved by III.4, where cde, like b, omit ple±on. The scribe of B
wrote ple±on in the margin after the last word of the page, having omit-
ted to write it as he turned the page. b, like at least one future colla-
tor (Cobet (1874) 36), failed to notice it. See Diels (1883) 14, (1909) xv,
Stein 8. A few readings of A also found their way into d or e: X.8 kpou
Ade (see n. 138): kopoÓ Bc; XIII.9 malakizomnwi Acde: kallwpiz- Be;
XIV.10 k»pou mbllein Ade: k»pon mbale±n Bc (Stein 9–10, Stefanis
106, 108).
143
Stein 10–15, Stefanis 111 –15. Stein (17 n. 4) rightly denies, against M. Sicherl,
Gnomon 36 (1964) 20–1, that z has any connection with the abridgement e. It
has been suggested that the abridgement z, and even the e-tradition, should
be credited to Planudes, who reworked the rhetorical corpus (p. 38 above),
with which Theophrastus continued to be transmitted (Immisch (1897)
xxxii–iii, Rabe 332–7, Steinmetz (1960) 38–41, Matelli 357–8; cf. N. G.
Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 235). That Planudes had any
hand in the shaping of the tradition is unproven. I treat with even greater
scepticism the claim (Steinmetz 41, Wilson (1962) 99, Scholars of Byzan-
tium 235) that Planudes wrote a commentary on the Characters. This is
based on C. Gesner, Bibliotheca Vniuersalis (Zurich 1545) 508 verso (s.u.
Maximus Planudes): Scripsit (sc. Planudes) commentarios in rhetoricam Her-
mogenis. In Theophrasti characteres, & scholia in Diophanti Arithmeticam. Quae
omnia seruantur in Italia. But in the preface to his Ioannis Stobaei Senten-
tiae (Basel 2 1549) Gesner makes clear that he had not actually seen
such a commentary: Audio et alios autores Graecos in Bibliothecis quibusdam,
praesertim apud Italos, reperiri, as an example of which he cites Maximi
Planudis in Theophrasti characteres expositio. What Gesner may have heard
of is nothing more remarkable than a manuscript (like those listed by
Matelli 357) which contained the Characters alongside the commentary on
Hermogenes.
144
Stefanis 112–13. This is preferable to derivation of d directly from d (Stein
12–15). d is particularly close to Vat. gr. 102 (60 Wilson), a typical represen-
tative of e.
145
d cannot be derived from c in I–XV (Stein 12–14, Stefanis 107), but is so
close to c in XVI–XXIII that it is derived either from c (Stefanis 111 –15) or
from z, the source of c (Stein 12, 15). The distinction is merely theoretical:
in XVI–XXVIII, c is in effect identical with z.
42
TRANSMISSION
derived from an ancestor (m) which acquired I–XV from a

descendant of B and XVI–XXI from a descendant of V.146 M
has some links with c.147
(iii) The manuscripts148

(i) ABV
The three manuscripts from which all later manuscripts descend
are:
AB Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 2977 (no. 44 Wilson) and
gr. 1983 (no. 40 Wilson). Probably 11th rather than 10th
cent.149 They contain I–XV, XXX.5–16. W. Studemund,
JClPh 31 (1885) 757–72, Rabe 323–32, Matelli 339–48. New
146
Diels (1883) 16–19, (1909) xxi–xxv, Stein 18–20, Stefanis 109–11. M has the
scholia in B (see immediately below, under AB). That it has malakizomnwi
(A) at XIII.9 is unsurprising. This reading was widely disseminated: it was
acquired by d (see n. 142), and will have been acquired by an ancestor of
m. To mark a link between A and m on the stemma (Stefanis 117) is super-
fluous. – Ineffectual claims continue to be made that M had access to an
independent tradition (K. Latte, Glotta 34 (1955) 200–2 = Kleine Schriften
(Munich 1968) 698–9, on VI.6). It almost passes belief that it could
ever have been suggested that M has the authentic text, of which the
other manuscripts have a later enlargement (C. Wurm and F. Thiersch,
‘Theophrasti Characteres . . . nunc primum genuina forma publicati, e
Codice quondam Augustano’, Acta Philologorum Monacensium 3.3 (1822) 363–
88, demolished by Foss 1834).
147
I.1 <t¼> ce±ron Mc; V.8 aÉt¼n mn] mn aÉt¼n Mc; V.8 <pmpein> ante
e« KÅzikon M, post e« K- c; IX. 3 t©mie Bde, Marc. 513 (64 Wilson), Rehd.
22 (71 Wilson): timiÛtate A: T©bie M et schol. M, Pal. 149 (57 Wilson)
(gr. t©mie marg.), t©mie T©bie Mut. (26 Wilson); X.1 mikrolog©a ABde,
Rehd., Marc.pc , Mut.pc : makro- M, Marc., <Mut.>, Pal.; XIII.6 tn ¾d¼n
katalip»nta post ¡ge±qai M: <katalipe±n> post poreÅetai add. Marc.,
Mut., Pal. (om. ABde, Rehd.). See Stein 19–20, Stefanis 109–10.
148
I do not repeat the bibliographical references in Wilson (1962), but I add
some which are new. By Arist. Gr. I refer to Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen
Manuskripte des Aristoteles, untersucht und beschrieben von P. Moraux, D. Harlfinger,
D. Reinsch, J. Wiesner. i: Alexandrien-London (Berlin and New York 1976).
149
Wilson ap. Stein 3 n. 4.
43
collation in Torraca (1974). A feature unique to B and some

of its descendants is a set of four scholia, all on the same
page: V.9 on t©turon and Qouriak, VI.3 on k»rdaka,
VI.8 on c±non.150 Both collated from photographs.
V Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 110 (no. 61
Wilson). Late 13th cent. (N. G. Wilson, in La Paléographie
grecque et byzantine (Colloqu. Internat. du C.N.R.S., no 559,
Paris 1977) 264). Contains XVI–XXX. Matelli 348–59.
Collated from photographs.151
(ii) a (descendants of A)
A has several direct descendants, derived from a common source,
a, which has two branches, a1 and a2 . From here onwards I prefix
Wilson’s numbers.
a1 :
21 Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 119 sup. (= gr. 319). 15th
cent. D. Bassi, RFIC 26 (1898) 493–8, Stefanis 83–6.
46 Paris, Bibl. Nat., supp. gr. 450. 15th cent. Stefanis 83–6.
Collation in Torraca (1974).152
a2 :
10 Florence, Bibl. Laur., plut. 86.3. 14th cent. Landi (1900),
Arist. Gr. 282–6, Stefanis 82–6. Collation in Torraca (1974).
7 Florence, Bibl. Laur., plut. 60.18. Dated 1427. XI–XV
are derived from 10 (I–X from a manuscript of group e).
Landi (1900), Arist. Gr. 219–20, Stefanis 102–4. Collation in
Torraca (1974).
150
They are reproduced by Diels (1909). For the decipherment of the two
former see Torraca (1990) 31 –41.
151
V did not come to light until 1743. Its text of XXIX–XXX (which it alone
preserves) was not published until 1786, of XVI–XXVIII not until 1798
(see p. 55). These earliest collations were grossly inaccurate. A collation by
Badham is reported by Sheppard (1852), Foss (1858), and Petersen (1859).
There is an elaborate collation by Cobet (Mnemosyne 8 (1859) 310–38).
152
a1 has also picked up some readings of e (Stefanis 86 n. 37).
44
TRANSMISSION
19 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, N.58 (= 4687). c. 1462.

I–X are derived from 7 (XI–XV from a different manuscript
of group e). G. de Andrés, Catálogo de los Códices Griegos de la
Biblioteca Nacional (Madrid 1987) 244, Stefanis 102–4.
50 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, gr. 2 (C.4.23). 1450–
1500. I–X. Derived from 19. Stefanis 96, 102–4.
Also derived from A, but preserving only I, is:
11 Florence, Bibl. Laur., plut. 87.14. Late 13th cent. Landi

(1900), Arist. Gr. 307–10, Stefanis 83 n. 33. Collation in Tor-
raca (1974).
(iii) b (descendants of B)
B has several direct descendants, derived from a common source,
b, which has two branches, b1 and b2 .
b1 :
35 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. T.V.6. Early 14th cent.

Torraca (1990), Stefanis 86–93.
32 Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, II.E.5 (= gr. 140). Early(?) 14th
cent. Stefanis 86–93. Collation in Torraca (1974).
42 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 2916. 13th cent. Stefanis 86–93. Colla-
tion in Torraca (1974). Shares a common source (b3 ) with
32. Derived from 42 is:
33 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Baroccianus 194. 15th cent.
Stefanis 87–93. Collation in Torraca (1974).
b2 :
55 Vatican, Pal. gr. 23. 1250–1300. Stefanis 86–93, 110–11.

Derived from 55 is:
23 Milan, Bibl. Ambros., P 34 sup. (= gr. 617). c. 1497. D.
Bassi, RFIC 26 (1898) 493–8, Stefanis 87.
45
(iv) c (I–XXVIII)153
c has two branches, c1 and c2 .
c1 :
71 Wroclaw, Rehdiger154 22. 1450–1500. Stein 6, Stefanis 74–8.
Collation in Diels (1883). From 71 is derived:
54 Vatican, Barberinianus gr. 97. 15th (not 14th) cent.
Wendland 105–9, Stein 5–6, 12 n. 4, Stefanis 75–6. From 54
are derived:
27 Montpellier, Bibl. de la Faculté de Médecine, 127.
Dated 1540. It has picked up some readings from e. Stein 6,
Stefanis 76–7.
18 Leiden, B.P.G. 67B (= 107). 1500–1550. I–XXIV (not
I–XIV). K. A. De Meyier and E. Hulshoff Pol, Bibliotheca Uni-
versitatis Leidensis, Codices manuscripti. VIII: Codices Bibliothecae
publicae Graeci (Leiden 1965) 106–9, Stein 6, Stefanis 75–6.
c2 :
26 Modena, Bibl. Estense, a.U.9.10 (= III.B.7, or gr. 59). c. 1420.
Stein 6, Stefanis 72–3.
64 Venice, Bibl. Marciana, gr. 513. 15th cent. E. Mioni, Codices
Graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae divi Marci Venetiarum ii (Rome
1985) 375–6, Matelli 363–4, Stein 6, Stefanis 71 –2. Col-
lation in Diels (1883).
57 Vatican, Pal. gr. 149. Late 15th cent. Used by Casaubon
for XXIV–XXVIII. Immisch (1897) ix–xi, Stein 6, Stefanis
73–4.
(v) d (I–XXIII)
29 Munich, gr. 327. Early 14th cent. Diels (1909) ix n. 1, Rabe
343–5, Stein 6–7, Stefanis 79–82, 111 –15. From 29 are
derived, wholly or in part:
153
Collation of XXIV–XXVIII in Torraca (1994b).
154
Not (as nearly everyone spells it) Rhediger.
46
TRANSMISSION
4 Cambridge, Trinity College, R.9.18–19 (Cichorius,

Wilson, and Stein wrongly give R.14.1). Late 15th or early
16th cent. Stein 7, 14, Stefanis 79–82. Collated from the
original.
70 Wolfenbüttel, Gudianus gr. 26. 15th cent. XVI–XXIII
are derived from 29, I–XV from 22. Stein 7, Stefanis 79–82.
Used by Camotius (Torraca (1994a) xxxvii).
13 Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, gr. 41. 16th cent. Landi
(1900), Stein 7, 14, Stefanis 79–82. As 70, XVI–XXIII are
derived from 29, I–XV from 22.
(vi) e (I–XV)
I list these in roughly chronological order, with descendants sub-
joined to their probable sources.
43 Paris, Bibl Nat., gr. 2918. Early 14th cent. Stefanis 95,
98–101.
5 Darmstadt, 2773. 14th cent. Arist. Gr. 122–4, Stefanis 94,
98–101.
63 Vatican, Vat. gr. 1500. 14th cent. Stefanis 96, 98–101.
1 Bologna, Bibl. Universitaria, 3561. 14th rather than 15th
cent.? Stefanis 94, 97–8.
66 Venice, Bibl. Marciana, App. gr. cl. xi.2. 14th (not
15th) cent. E. Mioni, Codices Graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae
divi Marci Venetiarum iii (Rome 1972) 78–80, Stefanis 97–8.
Collated by Diels (1883). Derived from 1 (Stefanis)?
67 Vienna, phil. gr. 238. 1450–1500. Stefanis 97, with
n. 71.
8 Florence, Bibl. Laur., plut. 60.25. 14th cent. Landi (1900),
Stefanis 94, 98–101.
58 Vatican, Pal. gr. 254. 15th cent. Stefanis 97, 99.
39 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 1744. 1450–1500. Stefanis 95, 99.
16 Leiden, Vossianus gr. Q.55. 15th–16th cent. Stefanis
94, 99.
47
2 Bucarest, gr. 602. 1500–1550. Arist. Gr. 90–7, Stefanis

94, 99. Collation in T. Costa, LF 90 (1967) 1 –8.
59 Vatican, Urbinas gr. 119. 14th cent. Stefanis 97, 98–101.
45 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 2986. 14th cent. Only I–XI. Stefanis 95,
98–101.
22 Milan, Bibl. Ambros., O 52 sup. (= gr. 589). 15th cent.
D. Bassi, RFIC 26 (1898) 493–8, Stefanis 94, 101.
51 Rome, Bibl. Casanatense, 6. 15th–16th cent. Stefa-
nis 96, 101.
60 Vatican, Vat. gr. 102. 14th cent. Stefanis 96, 98–101, 112–13.
20 Milan, Bibl. Ambros., C 82 sup. (= gr. 186). Dated 1426. D.
Bassi, RFIC 27 (1899) 280–23, Stefanis 93, 100.
30 Munich, gr. 490. 15th cent. Stefanis 95, 100.
62 Vatican, Vat. gr. 1327. 15th cent. Stefanis 96, 99.
68 Vienna, supp. gr. 32. 15th cent. Stefanis 97, 101.
12 Florence, Bibl. Laur., Conv. Soppr. 110. 15th cent.
Landi (1900), Stefanis 94, 101.
14 Athens, ìEqnik Biblioqkh (Istanbul, Met»cion toÓ
Panag©ou Tjou, 431). 15th cent. Stefanis 94, 101.155
25 Milan, Bibl. Ambros., I 111 inf. (= gr. 1060). 16th
cent. D. Bassi, RFIC 26 (1898) 493–8, Stefanis 94, 101. Also
indebted to an early printed edition?
49 Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 1231 (= gr. 8). 15th cent. Stefanis 96,
101.
34 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Auct. G.120. 15th
cent. Stefanis 95, 101.
17 Leiden, B.P.G. 59. 1500–1550. De Meyier and Hulshoff
Pol (see on 18 above) 81 –2, Stefanis 94, 101. The so-called
‘Vulcanianus’ of Casaubon (3 1612).156
155
Stefanis calls this simply ‘Atheniensis’. For an explanation see Arist.
Gr. 12–13.
156
Torraca (1994a) xxxviii–ix. Stefanis 101 n. 74 reports that many variants or
conjectures are accompanied by p, and speculates that this may stand for
‘Palatinus’. This use of p calls to mind the practice of Livineius (H. Lloyd-
Jones and N. G. Wilson, Sophoclea (Oxford 1990) 269–75, who speculate on
what it may stand for). L. Battezzato, ‘Livineius’ unpublished Euripidean
48
TRANSMISSION
6 Escorial .IV.1. 15th cent. G. de Andrés, Catálogo de los

Códices Griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial 3 (Madrid 1967)
no. 475, Stefanis 96, 101. Related to 53.
38 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 1639. Dated 1475. Stefanis 95, 100.
9 Florence, Bibl. Laur., plut. 80.23. 15th–16th cent. Landi
(1900), Stefanis 94, 100.
48 Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coislin 377. 1450–1500. Stefanis 96, 100.
36 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 1045. Dated 1501. Stefanis 95, 101.
56 Vatican, Pal. gr. 126. Early 16th cent. It does not lack IV,
VI, XIV. Stefanis 96, 100.
41 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 2830. Dated 1534–5. Stefanis 95, 100.
53 Vatican, Barberinianus gr. 76. 1500–1550. T. Hadot, RHT 8
(1978) 103–4, Stefanis 96, 101. Related to 6.
24 Milan, Bibl. Ambros., C 6 inf. (= gr. 843). Late 16th cent.
Stefanis 94, 100.
37 Paris, Bibl. Nat., gr. 1389. Late 16th cent. Stefanis 95, 100.157
(vii) The ‘Epitome Monacensis’

M Munich, gr. 505 (no. 31 Wilson). Late 14th cent. Rabe
345–57, Stein 18–20, Stefanis 109–10. An epitome of I–XXI.
Text in Diels (1883 and 1909).
Marginalia’, RHT 30 (2000) 323–48, shows that Livineius used p for p(uto),
to commend a reading or conjecture.
157
See also 7, 19, 50, under (ii) above (descendants of A). I ignore the following:
3 Bucarest, gr. 645. Dated 1771. I–XXVIII. Costa, LF 90 (1967) 1 –8, Stein
3 n. 6. – 15 Jerusalem, Stavrou 64. Dated 1862. I–XV. – 28 Munich, gr.
8. 15th–16th cent. I–XV(?). Stefanis 70 n. 11. – 47 Paris, Bibl. Nat., supp.
gr. 457. 18th cent. XXIX–XXX. Copy of Amadutius (Torraca (1990) 25
n. 21). – 52 Rome, Bibl. Casanatense, 420. 16th cent. I–XXIII. From a
printed edition. Wendland (1898) 106–9, 192, Stein 7, 14 n. 3, Stefanis 79,
Torraca (1994a) xii n. 8, 94. – 65 Venice, Bibl. Marciana, App. gr. cl. iv.43
(= Nanianus 266). 16th cent. I–XXIII. Mioni (see on 64 and 66 above)
i.ii (1972) 231 –2, Stein 8, 14, Stefanis 79. From a printed edition (Morel,
according to Torraca (1994a) xii n. 8, 94). – 69 Wolfenbüttel, Gudianus gr.
21. 13th cent.(?). I–XV. Lost. (Stefanis 70 n. 11 gives this as Gud. gr. 26
(70 Wilson), by oversight.)
49
(viii) Papyri
P1 P. Herc. 1457. 1st cent. bc. Part of V. From Philodemus, Perª
kakiän, probably Book 7 Perª kolake©a (T. Dorandi, ANRW
ii 36.4 (1990) 2345–8). Main contributions: W. Crönert,
Kolotes und Menedemos (Leipzig 1906) 182, D. Bassi, ‘Il testo più
antico dell’ ìArkeia di Teofrasto in un papiro ercolanese’,
RFIC 37 (1909) 397–405, J. M. Edmonds, CQ 4 (1910) 134–
5, D. Bassi, Herculanensium Voluminum quae supersunt Collec-
tio Tertia i (Milan 1914) 13–15, E. Kondo, ‘I “Caratteri”
di Teofrasto nei papiri ercolanesi’, CErc 1 (1971 ) 73–87,
T. Dorandi and M. Stein, ‘Der älteste Textzeuge für den
reko des Theophrast’, ZPE 100 (1994) 1 –16, I. E. Stefanis,
‘O *reko tou Qeojrtou’, EEThess 4 (1994) 123–36.
Extensive bibliographies in Kondo and in M. Gigante, Cat-
alogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples 1979) 332–4. The papyrus
has progressively deteriorated; not everything reported by
Bassi or Kondo is now visible. Examined for me by Jeffrey
Fish (see p. vii).
P2 P. Hamb. 143 (Pack2 2816). 1 st cent. bc. Parts of VII–VIII.
M. Gronewald, ZPE 35 (1979) 21–2.
P P. Oxy. 699 (Pack2 1500; Trinity College, Dublin, Pap. F
3
11 a).158 3rd cent. ad. Epitome of parts of XXV–XXVI. F.

Blass, APF 3 (1906) 496–7, J. M. Edmonds, CQ 4 (1910)
133–4. Collated from the original. [Addendum: 2 and 3
are re-edited by A. Guida in Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e
Latini (CPF) I.1 ∗∗∗ (Florence 1999) no. 103.1 –2; see also CPF
IV.2 (2002) figs. 81, 134.]
The accompanying stemma follows in its main lines, but not in all
details, that of Stefanis 117. I have added the manuscripts of the
e class: such relationships among them as are shown (very tenta-
tively) follow indications offered by Stefanis, who includes only
a few from this class in his own stemma. Individual manuscripts
are designated with Wilson’s numbers and may be identified by
reference to the preceding list.
158
Not (as given by Pack) F 11, which is Pack2 1905.
50
Ω(I-XXX)
ε ω
I-XV
XXX.5-16 XV
I-X
XX
ψ
A B
x-xi
b
xii a b2
b1
b3
I δ
xiii 42
e
V
11 55 VIII
ζ μ
a2 I-XV -XX
43 d XVI ?
XVI-XXIII c
35 32 29
1 I-XXI
II
xiv 10 5 c1 c2
8 63 45
XI
66 60
-X
a1 59
I
XV
XI-XV I-X M
V 22
7 XI-X 20
xv 21 46 I-X 68 14 49 34 I-XV
30 62 26
58 70
19 33 71
I-X 6 67 64
38 39
50 9 48 12 4
54
23 16 36 57
xvi 56 51
2 53 13
41
25 17
27 18
24 37
V S O M E T E X T S A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S
Characters I–XV were published at Nuremberg in 1527, with a
Latin translation, by Bilibaldus Pirckeymherus (Willibald Pirck-
heimer), from a transcription of a manuscript (not identifiable) of
class e which had been presented to him by Giovanni Francesco
Pico della Mirandola. The book, which shows little evidence
of editorial activity, is dedicated not inaptly to Albrecht Dürer
(quoniam pingendi arte praecellis, ut cerneres etiam, quam affabre senex ille
et sapiens Theophrastus humanas affectiones depingere nouisset).159
The editio princeps was soon followed by two editions, differing
from it little, published in Basel, without name of editor, under
the imprints of A. Cratander (1531 ) and J. Oporinus (1541 ). The
former is accompanied by a Latin translation made a century
earlier (from a source unknown) by Lapus Castelliunculus (Lapo
da Castiglionchio),160 not (as was once believed) by Politian. C.
Gesner printed I–XV in his portmanteau volume Ioannis Sto-
baei Sententiae ex Thesauris Graecorum Delectae etc., thrice published
between 1543 and 1559.161
J. B. Camotius (Camozzi) printed the surviving works of
Theophrastus in the sixth volume of his edition of Aristotle
159
For Pirckheimer (there are many spellings of his name, in both German
and Latin) see F. A. Eckstein, Nomenclator Philologorum (Leipzig 1871) 439,
W. Pökel, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexicon (Leipzig 1882) 209–10, C. Bur-
sian, Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutschland 1 (Munich and Leipzig
1883) 160–4, J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship 2 (Cambridge 1908)
259–60, R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 (Oxford
1976) 62, W. P. Eckert and C. von Imhoff, Willibald Pirckheimer, Dürers Fr-
eund (Cologne 1971), C. B. Schmitt in P. O. Kristeller, Catalogus Translationum
et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commen-
taries 2 (Washington 1971) 255–6. The translation and dedicatory letter are
reprinted in his Opera (Frankfurt 1610) 212–18. For Pico see Eckstein 377,
Pökel 177–8, Sandys 2.113.
160
Eckstein 319, F. P. Luiso, SIFC 7 (1899) 285–8, K. Müllner, WS 24 (1902)
216–30, N. G. Wilson, Scriptorium 16 (1962) 99, Schmitt 253–5.
161
Eckstein 190–1, Pökel 93, Sandys 2.269–70. Beware of confusing him with
J. M. Gesner (Eckstein 191, Pökel 93–4, Sandys 3 (1908) 5–9), who published
I–V, VII–X, XII, XIV, XVI–XVIII, XXI, XXV in his Chrestomathia Graeca
(Leipzig 1734).
52
S O M E T E X T S A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S
in 1552, and added XVI–XXIII from a manuscript of class

d.162 No fewer than seven editions of I–XXIII followed in the
next half-century. H. Stephanus (1557), the first editor equipped
with an adequate knowledge of Greek, effected many improve-
ments. Whether he really took XVI–XXIII ‘ex antiquo libro’,
as he claimed, is uncertain.163 L. Lycius (1561 ),164 C. Auberius
(1582),165 and F. Sylburg (1584),166 who achieved much less, all
show a high order of critical acumen. F. Morel (1583)167 con-
tributes little or nothing. D. Furlanus (1605)168 deserves credit
(which he has not yet received) for calling into doubt the authen-
ticity of the prooemium.
And then there is Isaac Casaubon, biblioqkh ti myuco
kaª peripatoÓn moue±on,169 who tops them all, both those
before and those to come. His first edition, containing I–XXIII,
with his own translation, was published in 1592 at Lyon.170 In the
second and third editions (1599, 1612) he added XXIV–XXVIII,
from a manuscript of class c in the Palatine Library at Heidel-
berg. Of the wonders worked by his first-hand learning take this
162
See p. 47 (on 70).
163
‘Qui liber antiquus est editio Camotiana’ J. F. Fischer (1763) Praef. [14]
(pages unnumbered). He was often accused of such deceptions (Sandys
2.176–7). The argument of Immisch (1897) lii, endorsed by Torraca (1994a)
101, that he would not have attempted to deceive Victorius, to whom he
dedicated the edition, is naive (cf. A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger 1 (Oxford 1983)
86–7).
164
Leonhard Wolf (obiit 1570) (Eckstein 624, Schmitt 256–7, 263–4).
165
Claude Aubery or Auberi (c. 1545–1596) (Schmitt 258–9), not (as editors
call him) Auber.
166
Eckstein 557, Pökel 270, Sandys 2.270–1, Pfeiffer 141.
167
Pökel 180, Sandys 2.207, Schmitt 259–60.
168
Danil ¾ Fourlno, Cretan (obiit c. 1600) (Schmitt 263, 265).
169
Eun. VS 4.1.3 (456B). Observe Casaubon’s own account of how he com-
posed the commentary: ‘ista recensemus non per otium in museo, sed ¾doÓ
prergon n podhm©ai, omnibus studiorum praesidiis destituti’ (note on
the prooemium); ‘quem locum ne pluribus nunc exponam non solum libro-
rum, sed et otii inopia facit. raptim enim ista, et in itinere scribebamus’ (on
XXX (his XI)).
170
Not Leiden (Immisch (1897) liii, Navarre (1924) xvi, O. Regenbogen, RE
Suppl. vii (1940) 1501), which is to confuse Lugdunum with Lugdunum
Batauorum. Cf. Schmitt 260–2, 264–5.
53
in illustration: at XXIII.2, de©gmati (the market in the Piraeus)

for diazeÅgmati, prompted by a scholium to Aristophanes. The
modified rapture of Mark Pattison (‘It is not till we reach the
Theophrastus, 1592, that we meet with Casaubon’s characteris-
tic merit – that we have an interpreter speaking from the fulness
of knowledge’) falls far short of justice.171 For an appropriate
transport of delirium turn to Scaliger: ‘Quum primum mihi sal-
iuam mouissent Theophrastei Characteres tui, dicam serio, de
potestate mea exiui’.172
We must wait nearly two centuries for XXIX–XXX. Mean-
while AB, the twin sources (as we now know) of I–XV, were
found in Paris, and used for the first time by Peter Needham
(1712), who reprints Casaubon’s commentary, and throws in
for bad measure an interminable commentary on I–IV, VI,
IX–XVI, which Bentley had identified as the lectures of James
Duport, delivered at Cambridge in the mid-17th century.173 The
text saw gradual improvement during this period: less from its
editors, T. Gale (1670–1 , 1688),174 J. C. de Pauw (1737),175 and
171
Isaac Casaubon 1559–1614 (Oxford 2 1892) 433.
172
Ep. xxxv (Epistolae (Leiden 1627) 145). – The Bodleian Library has
Casaubon’s working notes (Casaubon ms. 7). Elsewhere among his papers
(Casaubon ms. 11) I have found the notes of a scholar whom he cites at
II.10 (tii, ‘quod inuenimus e docti cuiusdam coniectura adnotatum’)
and def. VI (Ëperbol, ‘ut uir doctus coniiciebat, cuius nomen ignoro’).
Here is a puzzle: this same scholar proposed a conjecture at XIII.9 (‘lego
meo periculo kaumatizomnwi’) which Casaubon does not ascribe to him
but cites instead from the margin ‘unius e Palatinis codicibus’. In fact it
appears in the margin of Leiden, B. P. G. 59 (17 Wilson). Casaubon’s con-
fusion over the identity of the ms. is plausibly explained by Torraca (1994a)
xxxviii–ix; but I do not know why he fails to mention the anonymous
scholar. – The British Library has copies of the 1592 and 1599 editions with
copious annotations and unpublished conjectures added by Casaubon in
the margins. I report some conjectures from the 1599 edition (the most
notable is at XIV.12).
173
There is an excellent treatment of them by G. V. M. Heap, ‘James Duport’s
Cambridge lectures on Theophrastus’, in H. W. Stubbs (ed.), Pegasus: Critical
Essays from the University of Exeter (Exeter 1981) 84–97.
174
Sandys 2.354–5, C. O. Brink, English Classical Scholarship (Cambridge 1986)
17–18.
175
Pökel 203, E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1 (Oxford 1950) 44.
54
J. C. Schwartz (1739),176 than from the notes of J. J. Reiske and

J. S. Bernhard.177 The edition by J. F. Fischer (1763) exhaustively
assembles earlier scholarship.178
In 1743 Prospero Petroni announced the discovery in the
Vatican Library of V (which has XVI–XXX), and promised,
but failed, to publish its text.179 J. C. Amadutius180 published
XXIX and XXX (carelessly) in a sumptuous volume in 1786.
J. P. Siebenkees181 then copied (no less carelessly) all of XVI–
XXX from V, for inclusion in his Anecdota Graeca, which were
published after his death by J. A. Goez in 1798.182 It emerged
that V has a fuller text of XVI–XXVIII than the manuscripts
hitherto reported, and that XXX is a fuller version of what is
appended to XI in AB and their descendants. The authenticity
of these ‘additamenta Vaticana’ was to be debated for the next
fifty years.
Second to Casaubon, the two scholars who have contributed
most to the amendment and elucidation of the text are Coray183
and J. G. Schneider, whose editions both appeared in 1799.184
176
Pökel 253. On the title-page he calls himself Schwartz, not (as editors call
him) Schwarz.
177
Johann Stephan Bernhard (1718–93), a doctor in Amsterdam, friend and
correspondent of Reiske (Reiske, Lebensbeschreibung (Leipzig 1783) 112–13,
E. Mehler, Mnemosyne 1 (1852) 50–68, 330–54, Eckstein 42, Pökel 21, Sandys
2.451). Nearly everyone calls him Bernard.
178
Eckstein 159, Pökel 79, Sandys 3.14.
179
See Amadutius (1786) 14.
180
Giovanni Cristoforo Amaduzzi (Eckstein 9, Pökel 5, Sandys 2.384,
Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 2 (Rome 1960) 612–15).
181
Eckstein 534, Pökel 257.
182
Goez (Eckstein 200, Pökel 97) published his own edition of I–XXX in the
same year. His allegation (ap. Siebenkees 107–8, his own edition xi–xiii,
endorsed by Schneider (1799) x–xiv) that Amadutius had not seen V, but
had passed off Petroni’s transcription as his own, appears to be founded on
nothing but malice.
183
Adamantios Corais (Kora). For the alternative spellings of his name see
Sandys 3.364 n. 1. Coray (without initial) is what he called himself in France.
I. di Salvo, Koraı̀s e i Caratteri di Teofrasto (Palermo 1986), is useful.
184
Coray’s came first, since Schneider refers to it in his addenda (di Salvo
51 n. 37 is muddled). Coray published further conjectures in 1819, in a
55
They were friends, but over V they were divided, for Coray
hastily damned the ‘additamenta’, while Schneider defended
them at length. Schneider re-edited the text, with brief notes, in
his complete edition of Theophrastus (1818–21). D. N. Darvaris
(Drbari), who published a brief commentary in Greek (1815),
deserves credit for condemning the definitions as spurious.185
The commentary of F. Ast (1816),186 who sides with Coray
against V, contains much of value. The case for V was effec-
tively settled by H. E. Foss187 in three pamphlets published in
1834–6 (an edition followed in 1858) and by E. Petersen (1859).188
The polished commentary of R. C. Jebb (1870, revised by
J. E. Sandys in 1909) can still be read with pleasure. To see
its merits, compare it with its immediate English predecessor,
that of J. G. Sheppard (1852), which is pedestrian and prolix.
In 1897 a consortium of eight scholars at Leipzig published an
edition far more elaborate and professional than Jebb’s, based
on a wide survey of manuscripts. It remains indispensable.189
H. Diels (who had published a notable pamphlet on the
manuscript tradition in 1883) edited an Oxford Text in 1909,
worthy for its time. His lengthy Preface is distinguished by good
sense and good Latin. His apparatus criticus presents the evi-
dence solely of the primary witnessses ABV, uncluttered by the
recentiores. The Herculaneum papyrus, published in 1909, con-
taining parts of the fifth sketch, was a notable accession, for this
reason not least: ‘Der Papyrus kann uns wohl Vertrauen zur
review in a Viennese newspaper of vols i–iv (1818) of Schneider’s complete

Theophrastus (di Salvo 10 and n. 38). Schneider reports them in vol. v
(1821) 177–80.
185 186
See n. 56 above. Eckstein 17–18, Pökel 8–9, Sandys 3.112–13.
187 188
Eckstein 164–5, Pökel 81. Eckstein 433, Pökel 206.
189
They issued separately a text of XXXI (the Fil»logo), from a papyrus
in the Egyptian museum at Plagwitz. It is a gem. It is reprinted in ZAnt 24
(1974) 132, and by K. Bartels, Klassische Parodien (Zurich 1968) 26–9 (with
German translation) and W. W. Fortenbaugh, CW 71 (1978) 333–9 (with
English translation and commentary). A modern exercise on this theme by
M. Marcovich, ‘The genuine text of Theophrastus’ thirty-first Character.
Papyrus Lychnopolitana: editio princeps’, ZAnt 26 (1976) 51 –2, falls flat.
56
Kraft der Konjekturalkritik geben.’190 The conjectures Pra

nujamnhn (Herwerden) for couan Pra nujamnou
and palaitr©dion (Cobet) for aÉl©dion palaitria±on at V.9
are bold and brilliant. But, without the papyrus, who would have
had the courage to accept them?191
O. Navarre (Budé edition 1920, 1931 , commentary 1924) and
J. M. Edmonds (Loeb edition 1929, 1946) merit a passing but
muted mention. And so do two scholars better known for other
things: Wilamowitz, who included II, III, XIV, XVII, XXI,
XXIII, XXV, and XXX, with brief notes, in his Griechisches
Lesebuch (1902), and G. Pasquali, author of a stimulating pair
of articles (1918–19) and of an elegant but lightweight edition
(1919, revised by V. De Falco in 1979). The Teubner text of
O. Immisch (1923), who had contributed so much of value to the
Leipzig edition of 1897, disappoints. The edition of P. Steinmetz
(1960–2) is very dull. That of R. G. Ussher (1960, 1993) assembles
much useful information. The Loeb edition of J. Rusten (1993,
2002) offers the best text and translation currently available.
The most noteworthy contribution since the Leipzig edition
is a book by Markus Stein, Definition und Schilderung in Theophrasts
Charakteren (1992). Stein’s aim is to demonstrate that the defi-
nitions are spurious, and he achieves this aim with complete
success. He offers a commentary on substantial sections of the
text. It is commentary of high quality. I often disagree with him,
and where I do so I have generally registered my disagreement,
in token less of criticism than of respect.
190
M. Sicherl, Gnomon 36 (1964) 22, perhaps echoing Pasquali (1919) 16 =
(1986) 90 (‘Io non esito a giudicar questa una piena riabilitazione della
critica congetturale, se pure questa di riabilitazioni aveva bisogno’).
191
See pp. 19–20.
57
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
SIGLA
A Par. gr. 2977 (I–XV, XXX.5–16) saec. xi

B Par. gr. 1983 (I–XV, XXX.5–16) saec. xi
V Vat. gr. 110 (XVI–XXX) saec. xiii
his siglis nominantur codd. unus uel plures:
a (a1, a2 ) ab A deriuati
b a B deriuati
c (c1, c2 ) a B (I–XV) et V (XVI–XXVIII) deriuati
d a B (I–XV) et V (XVI–XXIII) deriuati
e a b deriuati
d fons codd. cde (I–XV)
M Monac. gr. 505 (I–XXI) saec. xiv
60
QEOFRATOU CARAKTHRE HQIKOI

e«rwne©a aé deiidaimon©a ivé
kolake©a bé memyimoir©a izé
dolec©a gé pit©a ihé
groik©a dé ducere©a iqé
5 reke©a eé hd©a ké
pono©a vé mikrojilotim©a kaé
lali zé neleuqer©a kbé
logopoi©a hé lazone©a kgé
naicunt©a qé Ëperhjan©a kdé
10 mikrolog©a ié deil©a keé
bdelur©a iaé ½ligarc©a kvé
kair©a ibé ½yimaq©a kzé
perierg©a igé kakolog©a khé
naiqh©a idé jiloponhr©a kqé
15 aÉqade©a ieé a«crokerde©a lé
Tit. carakt¦re qiko© D.L. 5.48, q- c- 5.47: qeojrtou c- AB, p¼ tän
toÓ qeojrtou caraktrwn V ad XVI
Indicem I–XXX M et post prooemium cd: I–XV AB: om. V genetiuos

(e«rwne©a ktl.) ABcd: nom. (e«rwne©a ktl.) M 10 makro- A 11
bdell- A
61
P RO O E M I V M
1 [ ï Hdh mn kaª pr»teron pollki pita tn dinoian
qaÅmaa, w d oÉd paÅomai qaumzwn· t© gr dpote,
t¦ ëElldo Ëp¼ t¼n aÉt¼n ra keimnh kaª pntwn
tän ëEllnwn ¾mo©w paideuomnwn, umbbhken ¡m±n oÉ tn
2 aÉtn txin tän tr»pwn cein; gÜ gr, å PolÅklei, 5
unqewra k polloÓ cr»nou tn nqrwp©nhn jÅin kaª
bebiwkÜ th nenkonta nna, ti d ÞmilhkÜ polla±
te kaª pantodapa± jÅei kaª parateqeamno x kribe©a
poll¦ toÅ te gaqoÆ tän nqrÛpwn kaª toÆ jaÅlou
Ëplabon de±n uggryai kteroi aÉtän pithdeÅouin n 10
3 täi b©wi. kqw d oi kat gno Âa te tugcnei gnh
tr»pwn toÅtoi proke©mena kaª Án tr»pon t¦i o«konom©ai
cräntai. Ëplabon gr, å PolÅklei, toÆ u¬e± ¡män
belt©ou eqai kataleijqntwn aÉto± Ëpomnhmtwn
toioÅtwn o³ parade©gmai crÛmenoi a¬rontai to± eÉc- 15
hmonettoi une±na© te kaª ¾mile±n, Âpw m katade-
4 teroi åin aÉtän. tryomai d ¢dh pª t¼n l»gon· ¼n d
parakolouq¦a© te ½rqä kaª e«d¦ai e« ½rqä lgw.
präton mn oÔn † poiomai† tän tn e«rwne©an zhlwk»twn,
jeª t¼ prooimizeqai kaª poll pra toÓ prgmato 20
5 lgein. kaª rxomai präton p¼ t¦ e«rwne©a kaª ¾rioÓmai
aÉtn, e²q ì oÌtw t¼n erwna dixeimi po±» t© ti kaª e«
t©na tr»pon katennektai. kaª t lla d tän paqhmtwn
ãper Ëpeqmhn peiromai kat gno janer kaqitnai.]
Prooemium a Theophrasto abiudicauit Furlanus Tit. proo©mion a (pro-

qewr©a e): om. AB 4 tän om. A 12 proke©mena ae, Stephanus:
prok- AB 20 pra Needham: perª AB 21 kaª (ante rx-) om. A
24 kaqitnai a (--), Fischer: -etnai AB (-- A)
62
P R E FA C E
[I have often in the past applied my thoughts to a puzzling
question – one which I think will never cease to puzzle me. Why,
when Greece lies under the same sky and all Greeks are educated
in the same way, do we not have a uniform system of manners? I
have long been a student of human nature, Polycles, and during
my ninety-nine years I have met all varieties of character and
I have subjected good people and bad to minute observation
and comparison. And so I thought that I ought to write a book
describing how both sorts of person behave in their daily lives. I
shall set out for you, type by type, the different kinds of character
which relate to them and how they manage. For I think that our
sons will be better, Polycles, if we bequeath them such records
as these, which will, if they use them as examples, prompt them
to converse and associate with the most decent sort of people,
in the hope that they may not fall short of them. And now I
shall turn to my narrative. You must follow it correctly and see
if what I say is correct. First then I shall ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ people who have
affected dissembling, dispensing with preamble and superfluous
talk. I shall begin with dissembling and I shall define it, and then
I shall proceed without more ado to describe what sort of person
the dissembler is and to what behaviour he is inclined. And then
I shall attempt to clarify the other emotions, type by type, as I
proposed.]
63
I
EIRWN
1 [ ëH mn oÔn e«rwne©a d»xeien n e²nai, Þ tÅpwi labe±n,
propo©hi pª ce±ron prxewn kaª l»gwn.]
2 ¾ d erwn toioÓt» ti o³o proelqÜn to± cqro± qlein
lale±n † oÉ mie±n† · kaª paine±n par»nta o³ pqeto lqrai
kaª toÅtoi ullupe±qai ¡tthmnoi· kaª uggnÛmhn d cein 5
to± aËt¼n kakä lgoui kaª pª to± kaq ì autoÓ legomnoi
3 <geln>. kaª † pr¼ toÆ dikoumnou kaª ganaktoÓnta†
4 prw dialgeqai. kaª to± ntugcnein kat poudn
boulomnoi protxai panelqe±n, kaª mhdn æn prttei
¾molog¦ai ll j¦ai bouleÅeqai kaª propoiaqai 10
rti paragegonnai kaª ½y g©gneqai [aÉt¼n] kaª malaki-
5 q¦nai. kaª pr¼ toÆ daneizomnou kaª ran©zonta < >
Þ oÉ pwle± kaª m pwlän j¦ai pwle±n. kaª koÅa ti m
propoie±qai kaª «dÜn j¦ai m oraknai kaª ¾mologa
m memn¦qai· kaª t mn kyeqai jkein, t d oÉk e«dnai, 15
t d qaumzein, t d ì ¢dh pot kaª aÉt¼ oÌtw dialog©-
6 aqai. kaª t¼ Âlon dein¼ täi toioÅtwi tr»pwi toÓ l»gou
cr¦qai· “OÉ piteÅw”, “OÉc Ëpolambnw”, “ ìEkplttomai”,
kaª † lgei aut¼n teron gegonnai† , “Kaª mn oÉ taÓta
pr¼ m diexiei”, “Pardox»n moi t¼ prgma”, “*llwi 20
tinª lge”, “ ëOp»teron d oª pitw £ ke©nou katagnä
poroÓmai”, “ ìAll ì Âra m Æ qtton piteÅei”.
Tit. e«rwne©a a é B, e«r- präto A 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 Þ B: n

A 3 ti B: tin A o³o B: o³on A (ql)ei ut uid. A1 s 4
lale±n B: labe±n A 5 ¡tthmnoi Schwartz: ¡ttwm- AB 6 aËt¼n
Diels: aÉ- AB 7 <geln> Darvaris 11 g©gneqai Diggle: genqai
AB aÉt¼n del. Hottinger 12 rwn©zonta B lac. indic. Salmasius
13 j¦ai Schneider siue Bloch: jei AB 14 j¦ai c: jei AB or-
Herwerden: wr- AB 15 kyeqai Casaubon: -aqai AB 16 oÌtw de:
-w AB 21 ëOp»teron Cobet: Âpw AB 22 piteÅei B: -h A
64
I
THE DISSEMBLER
[Dissembling, to define it in outline, would seem to be a pretence
for the worse in action and speech.]
The Dissembler is the sort of man who is ready to accost
his enemies and chat with them ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . When he has attacked
people behind their back he praises them to their face, and
he commiserates with them when they have lost a lawsuit. He
forgives those who speak abusively about him and <laughs at>
their abuse. He talks mildly to ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . When people want
an urgent meeting he tells them to call back later and never
admits what he is doing but says that he has the matter under
consideration and pretends that he has just arrived home or
that it is too late or that he fell ill. To applicants for a loan or a
contribution < > that he has nothing for sale, and when
he has nothing for sale he says that he has. He pretends not to
have heard, claims not to have seen, and says that he does not
remember agreeing. Sometimes he says that he will think about
it, at other times that he has no idea, or that he is surprised, or
that he once had the same thought himself. In general he is a
great one for using expressions like ‘I don’t believe it’, ‘I can’t
imagine it’, ‘I am amazed’, and ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ , ‘But that was not the
account he gave me’, ‘It beggars belief’, ‘Tell that to someone
else’, ‘I don’t know whether I should disbelieve you or condemn
him’, ‘Are you sure you are not being too credulous?’
65
7 [toiaÅta jwn kaª plok kaª palillog©a eËre±n ti

toÓ erwno. t d tän qän m pl ll ì p©boula jult-
teqai mllon de± £ toÆ cei.] 25
23–5 del. Bloch 23 palill- ad: pallil- AB 23–4 ti toÓ erwno
Ussing: tin oÉ ce±ron Àn AB 24 ll AB 25 toÆ B2 : ou B (incer-
tum quo accentu et spiritu): oÔ A
66
[Such are the remarks, tricks and repetitions which the Dis-
sembler will invent. One should be more wary of disingenuous
and designing characters than of vipers.]
67
II
KOLAX
1 [Tn d kolake©an Ëpolboi n ti ¾mil©an a«crn e²nai,
umjrouan d täi kolakeÅonti.]
2 ¾ d k»lax toioÓt» ti o³o ma poreuomnwi e«pe±n
“ ìEnqum¦i Þ poblpoui pr¼ o¬ nqrwpoi; toÓto
d oÉqenª tän n t¦i p»lei g©gnetai pln £ o©”, <kaª> 5
“HÉdok©mei cq n t¦i toi”· plei»nwn gr £ trikonta
nqrÛpwn kaqhmnwn kaª mpe»nto l»gou t© eh bltito
j ì aËtoÓ rxamnou pnta pª t¼ Ànoma aÉtoÓ katene-
3 cq¦nai. kaª ma toiaÓta lgwn p¼ toÓ ¬mat©ou jele±n
krokÅda, kaª n ti pr¼ t¼ tr©cwma t¦ kejal¦ Ëp¼ pneÅma- 10
to proenecq¦i curon karjolog¦ai, kaª pigela d
e«pe±n “ ëOri; Âti duo±n oi ¡merän oÉk ntetÅchka poliän
chka t¼n pÛgwna met»n, ka©per e ti kaª llo cwn
4 pr¼ t th mlainan tn tr©ca”. kaª lgonto d aÉtoÓ ti
toÆ llou iwpn keleÓai kaª painai d koÅonta kaª 15
pihmnaqai d, pn paÅhtai, “ ìOrqä”, kaª kÛyanti
yucrä pigelai t» te ¬mtion åai e« t¼ t»ma Þ d
5 oÉ dunmeno katace±n t¼n glwta. kaª toÆ pantänta
6 pit¦nai keleÓai w n aÉt¼ parlqhi. kaª to± paid©oi
m¦la kaª p©ou primeno e«engka doÓnai ¾ränto aÉtoÓ, 20
Tit. kolake©a b é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 ¾ d k»lax toioÓt» ti o³o

Darvaris: t¼n d k»laka toioÓt»n tina ãte AB poreuomnwi Diggle:
-»menon AB 5 d B1 s : om. AB oÉqenª B: oÉd- A g©netai AB £
om. B <kaª> Herwerden 6 -kmei Aac 7 mpe»nto l»gou B:
-peÜn l»go A 8 j ì aËtoÓ Ribbeck: p ì aÉ- AB 9 ma Schneider:
lla AB lgwn c, Lycius: -ein AB 10 Ëp¼ Auberius: p¼ AB 11
proenecq¦ e: -hncqh AB 12 due±n A 13 ce A cwn Par. 2986
s.l., Herwerden: cei AB 14 pr¼ t th hoc loco B: post llo A
mlaina A 15 koÅonta a1 , Casaubon: -to AB 16 pihminaqai A
pn paÅhtai Foss: e« paÅetai AB kÛyanti ed. Basil.a : kÛya t© AB
(-ä- A) 17 åe A d d: de± B: m A 19 ped©oi A
68
II
T H E TOA DY
[Toadying may be interpreted as a degrading association, but
one which is advantageous to the toadier.]
The Toady is the sort of man who says to a person walking
with him ‘Are you aware of the admiring looks you are getting?
This doesn’t happen to anyone else in the city except you’, and
‘The esteem in which you are held was publicly acknowledged in
the stoa yesterday’ – thirty or more people were sitting there and
the question cropped up who was the best man in the city, and his
was the name they all arrived at, starting with the Toady. While
he is going on like this he removes a flock of wool from the man’s
cloak, or picks from his hair a bit of straw blown there by the
wind, adding with a laugh ‘See? Because I haven’t run into you
for two days you’ve got a beard full of grey hairs, though nobody
has darker hair for his years than you’. When the man is speaking
he tells the company to be quiet and praises him so that he can
hear and at every pause adds an approving ‘Well said’, and bursts
out laughing at a feeble joke and stuffs his cloak into his mouth
as if he can’t control his laughter. He tells any who come their
way to stop until the great man has gone past. He buys apples
and pears and brings them to his house and presents them to the
children while their father is watching and gives them a kiss and
69
7 kaª jila d e«pe±n “CrhtoÓ patr¼ ne»ttia”. kaª unw-

noÅmeno ì Ijikrat©da t¼n p»da j¦ai e²nai eÉruqm»teron
8 toÓ Ëpodmato. kaª poreuomnou pr» tina tän j©lwn
prodramÜn e«pe±n Âti “Pr¼ rcetai”, kaª natrya
9 Âti “Proggelk e”. [mlei d kaª t k gunaike©a gor 25
10 diakon¦ai dunat¼ pneut©.] kaª tän tiwmnwn präto
painai t¼n o²non kaª parakeimnwi e«pe±n “ ë W malakä
tii”, kaª ra ti tän p¼ t¦ trapzh j¦ai “Toutª ra
Þ crht»n ti”. kaª rwt¦ai m çigo± kaª e« pibalqai
boÅletai kaª ti taÓta lgwn perite±lai aÉt»n· kaª ma 30
pr¼ t¼ oÔ prokÅptwn diayiqur©zein· kaª e« ke±non po-
11 blpwn to± lloi lale±n. kaª toÓ paid¼ n täi qetrwi
12 jel»meno t prokejlaia aÉt¼ Ëpoträai. kaª tn
o«k©an j¦ai eÔ rcitekton¦qai kaª t¼n gr¼n eÔ pejuteÓ-
qai kaª tn e«k»na ¾mo©an e²nai. 35
13 [kaª t¼ kejlaion t¼n k»laka ti qeaqai pnta kaª
lgonta kaª prttonta æi carie±qai Ëpolambnei.]
21 d B1 c : kaª B: om. A neott©a B 22 ì Ijikrat©da M.

Schmidt: pikrhp±da A: pª kr- B 22 e²nai j¦ai A 24
prodramÜn A 25 Pro- Auberius: pro- AB -ggelk e tamquam
u.l. falso referunt: -ggelka AB 25–6 del. Diels 25 d om.
A 27 parakeimnwi (-wn c) Gronouius: paramnwn AB 28 tii
nescioquis ap. Casaubon: q©ei AB1 c , a«- B 29 pibalqai de:
-bll- AB 30 tª B? taÓta lgwn hoc loco Schneider: ante pr¼
t¼ (31) AB (lgwn et -ein duplici compendio A) perite±lai c1 de: -te©lh
AB 30 ma Diels: m AB 31 prokÅptwn Valckenaer: prop©ptwn
A1 s B, diap- A diayiqur©zein A: yiq- B e« B: Þ A 34 -¦qai
Ac Bc : -e±qai AB 36–7 del. Bloch
70
calls them ‘Chicks of a noble sire’. When he joins him in shopping

for ‘Iphicratids’ he says that his foot is shapelier than the shoe.
When the man is on the way to a friend he runs ahead and says
‘He is coming to visit you’, and then goes back and says ‘I have
warned him of your arrival’. [He is certainly capable of doing
errands in the women’s market without stopping for breath.] At
dinner he is first to praise the wine, and he says to his host, next
to whom he is sitting, ‘How luxuriously you entertain’, and then
he takes something from the table and says ‘How exquisite’. And
he asks him if he is chilly and wants to put something on, and
before the words are out of his mouth he wraps him up. And he
leans forward and whispers in his ear; and while conversing with
the other guests he keeps looking at him. In the theatre he takes
the cushions from the slave and spreads them on the seat with
his own hands. He says that his house is a masterly example of
architecture, his farm is planted superbly, and his portrait hits
him off perfectly.
[In short, you can see the Toady saying and doing everything
he can think of to curry favour.]
71
III
ADOLECH
1 [ ëH d dolec©a tª mn dighi l»gwn makrän kaª pro-
bouleÅtwn.]
2 ¾ d dolch toioÓt» ti o³o, Án m gignÛkei, toÅtwi
parakaqez»meno plh©on präton mn t¦ aËtoÓ gunaik¼
e«pe±n gkÛmion· e²ta, Á t¦ nukt¼ e²den nÅpnion, toÓto 5
dihgaqai· e²q ì æn e²cen pª täi de©pnwi t kaq ì kata
3 diexelqe±n. e²ta d procwroÓnto toÓ prgmato lgein Þ
polÆ ponhr»tero© e«in o¬ nÓn nqrwpoi tän rca©wn, kaª Þ
xioi geg»nain o¬ puroª n t¦i gori, kaª Þ polloª pi-
dhmoÓi xnoi, kaª tn qlattan k Dionu©wn plÛimon 10
e²nai, kaª e« poieien ¾ ZeÆ Ìdwr ple±on t n t¦i g¦i belt©w
eqai, kaª Án gr¼n e« nwta gewrgei, kaª Þ calep»n
ti t¼ z¦n, kaª Þ Dmippo muthr©oi meg©thn dida
then, kaª p»oi e«ª k©one toÓ ìWide©ou, kaª “Cq ¢mea”,
kaª t© tin ¡mra tmeron, kaª Þ Bohdromiäno mn ti t 15
mutria, Puanoyiäno d <t> ìApatoÅria, Poideäno d
<t> kat ì groÆ DionÅia· kn Ëpomnhi ti aÉt»n, m
j©taqai.
4 [parae©anta d de± toÆ toioÅtou tän nqrÛpwn
<jeÅgein> kaª <t¼ kteion> d ì rmenon palltteqai, 20
Âti pÅreto boÅletai e²nai· rgon gr unarkeqai to±
mte coln mte poudn diaginÛkousin.]
Tit. dolec©a g é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 ti Hanow: tin AB Án

d: àn A: ân B? gin- AB 4 aËtoÓ Pauw (autoÓ de): aÉ- AB 5
gkÛmeion A 6 t¼ de±pnon A 7 d AB1 c : de± B 10 qlaan A
plÛimon a2 c2 de: pl»- AB1 c , pn»- B 12 Án gr¼n Diels: ¾ gr¼ AB
A 13 dmipo B meg©thn B: -oi AB1 s (del. B1 ) 15 tin Ac B:
¡A tmeron e, Herwerden: - AB 15–17 kaª Þ . . . DionÅia hoc
loco Hottinger, praemonente Pauw: post j©taqai (18) AB 16 Puanoy-
iäno Bechert: -ney- AB <t> M, Darvaris Poideäno Bechert:
poeid- AB 17 <t> Casaubon 19–22 del. Bloch 20 <jeÅgein>
Casaubon <t¼ kteion> d ì rmenon Jackson: diarmeno AB (-on d)
pal- A 21 pÅreto ed. pr.: -euto AB, -ekto de unarkeqai
Duport: unarke±qai AB 22 coln . . . poudn B: poudn . . . coln
A
72
III
T H E C H AT T E R B OX
[Chatter is the narration of long and ill-considered speeches.]
The Chatterbox is the sort of person who sits next to a com-
plete stranger and first sings his own wife’s praises, then recounts
the dream he had last night, then describes in every detail what
he had for dinner. Then, as things are going well, he continues
with talk like this: people nowadays are far less well-behaved
than in the old days; wheat is selling in the market at a bargain
price; the city is full of foreigners; the festival of Dionysus heralds
the start of the sailing season; more rain would be good for the
crops; what land he will cultivate next year; life is hard; Damip-
pos set up a very large torch at the mysteries; how many pillars
there are in the Odeion; ‘I threw up yesterday’; what day of the
month it is; the Mysteries are in September, the Apatouria in
October, the Rural Dionysia in December. If you let him go on
he will never stop.
[Show a clean pair of heels, full steam ahead, avoid such
people like the plague. It is hard to be happy with people who
don’t care whether you are free or busy.]
73
IV
AGROIKO
1 [ ë H d groik©a d»xeien n e²nai maq©a cmwn.]
2 ¾ d groiko toioÓt» ti o³o kukeäna piÜn e« kklh©an
poreÅeqai, kaª t¼ mÅron jkein oÉdn toÓ qÅmou ¤dion Àzein,
kaª me©zw toÓ pod¼ t Ëpodmata jore±n, kaª meglhi t¦i
3 jwn¦i lale±n. kaª to± mn j©loi kaª o«ke©oi pite±n, pr¼ d 5
toÆ aËtoÓ o«kta nakoinoÓqai perª tän meg©twn, kaª
to± par ì aËtäi rgazomnoi miqwto± n gräi pnta t
4 p¼ t¦ kklh©a dihge±qai. kaª nabeblhmno nw toÓ
5 g»nato kaqiznein [ãte t gumn aÉtoÓ ja©neqai]. kaª
p ì llwi mn mhdenª <mte eÉjra©neqai> mte kplt- 10
teqai n ta± ¾do±, Âtan d dhi boÓn £ Ànon £ trgon
6 thkÜ qewre±n. kaª proairän d ti k toÓ tamie©ou dein¼
7 jage±n, kaª zwr»teron pie±n. kaª tn itopoi¼n peirän
laqe±n, kit ì la met ì aÉt¦ <metr¦ai> to± ndon pi
8 kaª aËtäi t pitdeia. kaª ritän d ma to± Ëpozug©oi 15
9 mbale±n <t¼n c»rton. kaª> t¦i qÅrai ËpakoÓai aÉt», kaª
t¼n kÅna prokalemeno kaª pilab»meno toÓ çÅgcou
10 e«pe±n “OÕto julttei t¼ cwr©on kaª tn o«k©an”. kaª
[t¼] rgÅrion d par tou labÜn podokimzein, l©an
11 <gr> molubr¼n e²nai, kaª teron ntalltteqai. kaª n 20
twi rotron crhi £ k»jinon £ drpanon £ qÅlakon,
Tit. groik©a d é 1 del. Darvaris 2 gro±ko A ti om. A

o³on A 3 qumoÓ A 6 aËtoÓ Stephanus: aÉ- AB 7 aËtäi
Schwartz: aÉ- AB 9 del. Darvaris 10 mn om. A suppl. Kassel
11 n ta± ¾do± B: n (postea deletum) A dh B1 c , e«- B 12 proairän
Sylburg: proa©rwn AB tamie©ou e, Meineke: tame©ou AB deinä
s 1 1
BA 14 suppl. (post Casaubon) Diggle 15 aËtäi Needham: aÉtä
B, -o± A 16 mbale±n ABc : -än uel -Ün B suppl. ed. pr. t¦i qÅrai
Diggle: tn qÅran AB ËpakoÓai Casaubon: p- AB 19 del. ed. pr.
tou B: toÅtou A 20 <gr> Eberhard molubr¼n Diels: mn lupr¼n
AB ntalltteqai Nauck: ma ll- AB 20–1 n . . . crhi Foss:
e« (om. B) . . . crhen AB 21 twi Needham: t¼ AB
74
IV
T H E C O U N T RY B U M P K I N
[Country-bumpkin Behaviour would seem to be ignorance of
good form.]
The Country Bumpkin is the sort of man who drinks a bowl
of gruel before going to the Assembly and claims that garlic
smells as sweetly as perfume, wears shoes too large for his feet
and talks at the top of his voice. He distrusts friends and family,
preferring to discuss important business with his slaves, and he
reports the proceedings of the Assembly to the hired labourers
working on his farm. He sits with his cloak hitched up above his
knees [thereby revealing his nakedness]. In the street the only
sight in which he takes any <pleasure> or interest is an ox or a
donkey or a goat, at which he will stop and stare. He is apt to raid
the larder and drink his wine neat. He makes secret advances to
the girl who does the baking, then helps her to grind the corn
<before measuring out> the daily ration for the household and
himself. He gives the plough-animals <their fodder> while
eating his breakfast. He answers the door himself, calls his dog,
grabs it by the snout, and says ‘This guards my estate and home’.
He rejects a silver coin that he is offered, because it looks too
leaden, and demands a replacement. If he is lying awake in the
middle of the night and remembers lending someone a plough,
75
taÓta t¦ nukt¼ kat grupn©an namimnhk»meno

12 < >. kaª n balane©wi d iai, kaª e« t Ëpodmata d
13 ¤lou gkroÓai. kaª e« tu kataba©nwn rwt¦ai t¼n
pantänta p»ou §an a¬ dijqrai kaª t¼ trico kaª e« 25
tmeron ¾ rcwn noumhn©an gei, kaª e«pe±n Âti boÅletai
eÉqÆ katab poke©raqai kaª t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ periÜn
kom©aqai par ì ìArc©ou toÓ tar©cou.
22 t¦ A: toÓ B 23–4 kaª . . . gkroÓai hoc loco Diggle: post

Ëpoke©raqai (27) AB 26 tmeron Herwerden: - AB rcwn Reiske:
gÜn AB 26–7 Âti b- eÉqÆ Casaubon: eÉqÆ Âti b- AB 27
poke©raqai d: Ëpo- AB periÜn Diggle: par- AB 28 toÓ Sylburg:
toÆ AB
76
basket, sickle or sack, he < >. He sings at the baths and

hammers nails into his shoes. On his way to town he asks a man
he meets what the price of hides and kippers was and whether
it is officially the first of the month, and says that as soon as he
gets to town he means to have a haircut and, while he is about
it, go round the shops and pick up some kippers from Archias’s.
77
V
AREKO
1 [ ëH d rkei ti mn, Þ Ârwi perilabe±n, nteuxi oÉk pª
täi belt©twi ¡don¦ parakeuatik.]
2 ¾ d reko [mlei] toioÓt» ti o³o p»rrwqen proa-
goreÓai kaª ndra krtiton epa kaª qauma ¬kanä
mjotrai ta± cerª peribalÜn m jinai kaª mikr¼n 5
propmya kaª rwta p»te aÉt¼n Àyetai painän
3 palltteqai. kaª paraklhqeª d pr¼ d©aitan m m»non
æi preti boÅleqai rkein ll kaª täi ntid©kwi, ¯na
4 koin» ti e²nai dok¦i. kaª <pr¼> toÆ xnou d e«pe±n Þ
5 dikai»tera lgoui tän politän. kaª keklhmno d pª 10
de±pnon keleÓai kalai t paid©a t¼n tiänta, kaª e«i»nta
j¦ai Åkou ¾moi»tera e²nai täi patr©, kaª proagag»meno
jil¦ai kaª par ì aËt¼n kaq©aqai, kaª to± mn umpa©zein
aÉt¼ lgwn “ ìAk», pleku”, t d pª t¦ gatr¼ n
kaqeÅdein ma qlib»meno. 15
6 <. . . . .> kaª pleitki d poke©raqai kaª toÆ ½d»nta

leukoÆ cein kaª t ¬mtia d crht metablleqai kaª
Tit. reke©a e é (e é om. A) 1 –2 del. Darvaris (incertum an habuerit P)

2 parakeu A 3 ] arek[o |. . . ] . [. ] . e. . [ xi–xiii ] | pw[rrwqen P
mlei del. Diggle ti B: tin A 3 proag- B: proag- A: [P] 4 ]euai
P: -eÅa AB e..ipa[] P: e«pÜn AB qau[m]a. z. w. n. p[ P 5 cer. . i. n.
P p. e. r. [i]b. [a]l. [wn] P, coni. Herwerden: om. AB 6 [a]p. o. p. ro[pemya
in P suppl. Stein epainwn P, coni. Needham: ti a«nän AB 7–8
diaita[n mh monon toutwi wi] in P suppl. Schmidt 8 paretin
olim P (nunc paret[ ) 9 ti olim P (nunc t. [ ), coni. Pauw:
e³ AB <pr¼> Casaubon d AB: d P 10 keklhmno B:
-oi A: [P] d AB: d P 11 keleuai P, -eÓai d: -eÅei
AB e. .i . e. l. [qon]ta P 12 pro[agago]m. e. [no P, ce: proag»meno
AB 13 aËt¼n e: au[t]o[n] P: aÉ- AB kaqi|a]qai P, coni. Cobet:
kaq©taqai AB 15 ma om. ut uid. P 16 sqq. (quae nullo post
15 interuallo continuant PAB) ad caput alienum rettulit Casaubon 16
pleitou olim P (nunc pleito[ )
78
V
T H E O B S E QU I O U S M A N
[Obsequiousness, to encapsulate it in a definition, is contact
which aims at giving pleasure, but not for the best motive.]
The Obsequious Man is [decidedly] the sort who greets you
from a distance, calls you ‘My dear Sir’, and when he has suffi-
ciently expressed his admiration embraces you with both arms
and won’t let you go, then comes a little way with you and
asks when he will see you again, before taking his leave with
a compliment on his lips. When called in to an arbitration he
wants to gratify not only the man whose side he is on but also
his opponent, so that he may be thought impartial. He assures
foreigners that they have a better case than his fellow-citizens.
When invited to dinner he asks his host to call in his children,
and as they enter he declares that they are as like their father as
two figs. Then he draws them to him and kisses them and sits
them down beside him. He plays with some of them, joining in
the cry of ‘Wineskin’ and ‘Axe’; and he lets others fall asleep on
his stomach even though they are crushing him.
(from a different sketch)
. . . He has frequent haircuts, keeps his teeth white, persis-
tently changes his clothes, and anoints himself with unguents.
79
7 cr©mati le©jeqai. kaª t¦ mn gor pr¼ t trapza

projoitn, tän d gumna©wn n toÅtoi diatr©bein oÕ n o¬
jhboi gumnzwntai, toÓ d qetrou kaq¦qai, Âtan §i qa, 20
8 plh©on tän trathgän. kaª gorzein aËtäi mn mhdn,
xnoi d e« Buzntion † pitlmata† kaª Lakwnik kÅna
e« KÅzikon kaª mli ë Umttion e« ë R»don, kaª taÓta poiän
9 to± n t¦i p»lei dihge±qai. mlei d kaª p©qhkon qryai
dein¼ kaª t©turon ktaqai kaª ikelik periter kaª 25
dorkade©ou traglou kaª Qouriak tän troggÅlwn
lhkÅqou kaª bakthr©a tän koliän k Lakeda©mono kaª
aÉla©an Pra nujamnhn kaª palaitr©dion kon©tran
10 con kaª jairitrion. kaª toÓto periÜn crhnnÅnai to±
ojita±, to± ¾plomcoi, to± rmoniko± nepide©knuqai· 30
kaª aÉt¼ n ta± pide©xein Ìteron peiinai peidn ¢dh
ugkaqäntai, ¯n ì ¾ tero ephi tän qewmnwn pr¼ t¼n teron
Âti “ToÅtou tªn ¡ pala©tra”.
18 c]ri|mati olim P (nunc ]mati), coni. Herwerden: cr©mati AB 19

proerceq. [ai P oi olim P (nunc deest): om. AB 20 gumnzwntai
(P)B1 c : -zontai AB §i c: ¡ AB: [P] 21 aËtäi post Stephanum (aÉ-)
Sylburg: aÉt¼n AB: [P] 22–3 xen. [ c. xviii l]akw[nika P (quae usque ad
24 th]i. p. [ole]i. deest) 24 qryai d: dr- AB: [P] 28 aÉla©an AB:
-a. P 28 Pra nujamnhn Herwerden: p. era en. u. [ja]men. o. u P:
couan p- nujamnou AB palait. r. [i]di.o. [n P, coni. Cobet: aÉl©dion
palaitria±on AB kon©tran Diggle: k»nin (P)AB 29 crhn]n. [u]n. ai
P, coni. Foss: cr nÓn eª AB [t]oi o[jita]i P: to± jilo»joi
to± oj- AB 30 e]n[epideikn]u. qa. [i P, coni. Cobet: pid- AB 31
pide©xein d: pod- AB: [P] 31 –2 Ìteron peiinai peidn ¢dh
ugkaqäntai ¯n ì ¾ tero ephi tän qewmnwn pr¼ t¼n teron post com-
plures Diggle: ei.. [ienai] e.pe. .i [dan hd]h. unkaqwn. [tai i]n[a ti ei]p. [hi] tän
q. [e]w[m]enw[n in P fere suppl. Dorandi et Stein: Ìteron peiin (peiinai
Foss) pª (¯n ì ephi ti Madvig) tän qewmnwn pr¼ t¼n teron AB
80
He haunts the banks in the market-place, dallies in the gymnasia

in which the ephebes are exercising, and sits near the generals
when there is a show at the theatre. He buys nothing for himself,
but for foreign friends ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ to Byzantium, Spartan dogs to Cyz-
icus, and Hymettian honey to Rhodes, and he tells everybody
in the city what he is doing. He is prone to keep a pet ape, and
to acquire an oriental pheasant, Sicilian pigeons, gazelle-horn
knucklebones, Thurian oil-flasks of the spherical sort, twisted
walking-sticks from Sparta, a tapestry embroidered with Per-
sians, and a little palaestra with a sanded area for wrestling and
a room for boxing practice. He goes around offering this arena to
sophists, drill-sergeants and music lecturers for them to perform
in. And he arrives at these performances after the spectators are
already seated, so that they will say to each other ‘This is the
owner of the palaestra.’
81
VI
APONENOHMENO
1 [ëH d p»noi tin Ëpomon a«crän rgwn kaª l»gwn.]
2 ¾ d ponenohmno toioÓt» ti o³o [½m»ai tacÅ, kakä
koÓai, loidorhq¦nai dunamnoi, täi ¢qei gora±» ti kaª
3 naeurmno kaª pantopoi». mlei dunat¼ kaª] ½rce±qai
njwn t¼n k»rdaka † kaª prowpe±on cwn n kwmikäi coräi† . 5
4 kaª n qaÅmai d toÆ calkoÓ klgein kaq ì katon periÜn
kaª mceqai toÅtwn to± t¼ Åmbolon jroui kaª pro±ka
5 qewre±n xioÓi. dein¼ d kaª pandokeÓai kaª pornobok¦ai
kaª telwn¦ai kaª mhdem©an a«crn rga©an podokimai,
6 ll khrÅttein, mageireÅein, kubeÅein. <kaª> tn mhtra m 10
trjein, pgeqai klop¦, t¼ demwtrion ple©w cr»non
7 o«ke±n £ tn aËtoÓ o«k©an. [kaª oÕto d ì n e²nai d»xeien tän
periitamnwn toÆ Àclou kaª prokaloÅntwn, meglhi t¦i
jwn¦i kaª parerrwgu©ai loidoroumnwn kaª dialegomnwn
pr¼ aÉtoÅ, kaª metaxÆ o¬ mn pro©ain, o¬ d p©ain 15
prªn koÓai aÉtoÓ, ll to± mn rcn, to± d <oÉd>
ullabn, to± d mro toÓ prgmato lgei, oÉk llw
qewre±qai xiän tn p»noian aËtoÓ £ Âtan §i panguri.]
8 ¬kan¼ d kaª d©ka t mn jeÅgein, t d diÛkein, t d
x»mnuqai, ta± d pare±nai cwn c±non n täi prokolp©wi 20
Tit. pono©a vé (vé om. A) 1 del. Darvaris kaª l»gwn a1 , ed.

Basil.a : dikaiol»gwn AB 2 ti B: tin A 2–4 del. Diels 3
dunamnoi Foss: dunmeno AB 5 komikä B (c)w(räi) As
6 calkoÆ AB periÜn post Needham (periiÜn) Navarre: par- AB
7 toÅtwn Petersen: toÅtoi AB 8 pornobokeÓai B 9 kaª (prius)
Ac B: £ A? rga©an a«crn A 10 <kaª> Herwerden 12 aËtoÓ
d, Stephanus: aÉ- AB 12–18 praeeunte Meister del. Diels 12 oÕto
C. Gesner: toÓto AB 16 tn rcn A <oÉd> Diggle 17 lgei
e: -ein AB oÉ kalä A 18 aËtoÓ Stephanus: aÉ- AB 19–20 ta± d
x- B
82
VI
THE MAN WHO HAS LOST ALL SENSE
[Loss of Sense is a tolerance of disgraceful action and speech.]
The Man Who Has Lost All Sense is the sort who [swears
an oath pat, gets a bad reputation, slanders men of influence, is
vulgar in character, defiant of decency, and ready for anything
and everything. And he is just the sort who] dances the cordax
while sober and ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . He will go round the audience at
fairs and ask everyone for their entrance fee and argue with
ticket-holders who claim there is nothing to pay. He is apt
to keep an inn or a brothel or be a tax collector; he regards
no occupation as beneath his dignity, but is ready to work
as an auctioneer, hired cook, or gambler. He lets his mother
starve, gets arrested for theft, and spends more time in gaol
than at home. [He would seem to be one of those who call on
crowds to gather round, then rail at them and hold forth in
a loud cracked voice. Meanwhile some come along to hear,
and others go away before they can hear him; so that some
get the beginning, others <not> a syllable, others a section of
his message. He is only satisfied when showing off his loss of
sense to a public meeting.] In court he can play the plaintiff
as well as the defendant; and sometimes he will swear that
he deserves to be excused attendance, or arrive with a box-
ful of evidence in his coat pocket and strings of little documents in
83
9 kaª ¾rmaqoÆ grammateid©wn n ta± cer©n. <kaª> oÉk

podokimzein d oÉd ì ma pollän gora©wn trathge±n
kaª eÉqÆ toÅtoi dane©zein kaª t¦ dracm¦ t»kon tr©a ¡miw-
blia t¦ ¡mra prtteqai, kaª jodeÅein t mageire±a,
t «cquopÛlia, t taricopÛlia, kaª toÆ t»kou p¼ toÓ 25
mpolmato e« tn gnqon klgein.
10 [rgÛdei d e«in o¬ <toioÓtoi>, t¼ t»ma eÎluton conte
pr¼ loidor©an kaª jqegg»menoi meglhi t¦i jwn¦i, Þ
unhce±n aÉto± tn gorn kaª t rgatria.]
21 grammateid©wn Herwerden: -id©wn AB <kaª> Meier 22 po-

dokimzein Meier: -zwn AB 23 dragm¦ B ¡miw- B: ¡mi- A 24 -blia
Diels: -b»lia AB prtteqai ac2 de: pl- AB 25 t d «cq- A 26
mpwl- B 27–9 del. Bloch 27 rgÛde B, -ei B1 s <toioÓtoi>
Diggle 28 pr¼ B: e« A
84
his hands. He does not think it beneath him, either, to manage

a mass of market-traders and lend them money on the spot and
charge a daily interest of one and a half obols to the drachma,
and do the rounds of the butchers, the fishmongers, and the
kipper-sellers, and pop the interest from their takings straight
into his mouth.
[They are tiresome, these foul-tongued loud-mouthed people,
who make the marketplace and the shops echo with their noise.]
85
VII
LALO
1 [ ëH d lali, e ti aÉtn ¾r©zeqai boÅloito, e²nai n d»xeien
kra©a toÓ l»gou.]
2 ¾ d llo toioÓt» ti o³o täi ntugcnonti e«pe±n, n
¾tioÓn pr¼ aÉt¼n jqgxhtai, Âti oÉqn lgei kaª Âti aÉt¼
3 pnta o²de ka©, n koÅhi aËtoÓ, maqetai. kaª metaxÆ d 5
pokrinomnwi pibale±n epa “Æ m pilqhi Á mllei
lgein” kaª “EÔ ge Âti me Ëpmnha” kaª “T¼ lale±n Þ cr-
im»n pou” kaª “ î O parlipon” kaª “TacÅ ge un¦ka t¼
prgma” kaª “Plai e paretroun, e« pª t¼ aÉt¼ moª
katenecqhi”, kaª tra tarac toiaÅta por©aqai, 10
4 ãte mhd napneÓai t¼n ntugcnonta. kaª Âtan ge toÆ
kaq ì na poguiÛhi, dein¼ kaª pª toÆ qr»ou [kaª]
unethk»ta poreuq¦nai kaª juge±n poi¦ai metaxÆ crhma-
5 t©zonta. kaª e« t didakale±a d kaª e« t pala©tra
e«iÜn kwlÅein toÆ pa±da promanqnein. [toaÓta kaª 15
6 prolale± to± paidotr©bai kaª didakloi.] kaª toÆ
pinai jkonta dein¼ propmyai kaª pokatat¦ai
7 e« t o«k©a. kaª puqomnoi <t p¼> t¦ kklh©a
paggllein, prodihgaqai d kaª tn p ì ìAristojän-
t» pote genomnhn toÓ çtoro mchn kaª tn <n> Lake- 20
daimon©oi pª Lundrou kaª oÌ pote l»gou aÉt¼
epa hÉdok©mhen n täi dmwi, kaª kat tän plhqän
Tit. lal©a z é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 ti B: ti t© A 4 oÉdn A

5 o²den AB aËtoÓ Edmonds: aÉ- AB 6 pokrinomnwi d: -namnw(i)
AB pibale±n a: -bllein AB epa e: e²pa AB 9 moª om. A
10 tarac Diels: rc AB 12 poguiÛhi Pauw: -gumnÛh(i) AB
kaª del. Meineke 15 e«i¼n B 15–16 del. Diels 16 prolale±
Sheppard: -lale±n AB 18 e« t o«k©a Ribbeck (e« tn o«k©an cd): k t¦
o«k©a AB puqomnoi Foss: puq»meno AB <t p¼> t¦ Dobree:
t AB 19 prodihgaqai de: prod- AB 20 pote de: t»te AB
<n> Weil 21 pª de: Ëp¼ AB 22 epa Needham: e²pa A: e²pen B
hÉ- Needham: eÉ- AB -dok©mhen c: -dok©mhan AB
86
VII
T H E TA L K E R
[Talkativeness, if one wished to define it, would seem to be failure
to keep speech under control.]
The Talker is the sort who says to a person he meets, no
matter what that person tells him, that he is speaking nonsense
and that he knows the whole truth and if he listens to him he will
learn it. In the middle of the other’s reply he throws in ‘Don’t
forget what you are leading up to’, ‘Thanks for reminding me’,
‘I think it’s useful to talk’, ‘Yes, I left that out’, ‘You’re quick
to grasp the point’, and ‘I was waiting all along to see if you
would reach the same conclusion as me’. He has such a variety
of disruptive tactics in his repertoire that his victim cannot even
get a breather before the next assault. When he has worn down
a few lone stragglers he will march against whole bodies of men
and put them to rout with their business unfinished. He enters
schools and palaestras and stops the children’s lessons. [He talks
so much to the trainers and teachers.] When people say they must
go, he keeps them company and delivers them home. When
asked for the latest news from the assembly he gives a report
of it, then adds an account of the fight which once occurred
in the time of the orator Aristophon and the one among the
Lacedaimonians in Lysander’s time, and the public speeches for
which he himself received acclaim in the past, and interjects
87
ge ma dihgoÅmeno kathgor©an parembale±n, ãte toÆ

koÅonta ¢toi pilabqai £ nutai £ metaxÆ katale©-
8 ponta palltteqai. kaª undikzwn d kwlÓai kr±nai 25
9 kaª unqewrän qeaqai kaª undeipnän jage±n. kaª lgein
Âti “Calep»n mo© ti iwpn” kaª Þ n Ëgräi tin ¡
glätta kaª Âti oÉk n iwpeien oÉd ì e« tän celid»nwn
10 d»xeien e²nai lal©tero. kaª kwpt»meno Ëpome±nai kaª Ëp¼
tän aËtoÓ paid©wn, Âtan aÉt¼n ¢dh kaqeÅdein boul»menon 30
kwlÅhi lgonta “Pppa, llei ti ¡m±n, Âpw n ¡m Ìpno
lbhi”.
24 pilabqai Casaubon: -laqqai AB: ]ai P nutaai P: -xai

AB katale©ponta Stein: -lip»nta PAB 26 kai le]gein P (suppl.
Gronewald): lgwn AB 27 cale[pon moi et]in P (suppl. Kassel): c- tä(i)
llw(i) tª AB 29 d»xeien n A 30 aËtoÓ e: aÉ- AB 30 boul»-
menon a1 c2 (d): -mena AB 31 kwlÅhi Hartung: keleÅh(i) AB Pppa
Sylburg: taÓta AB llei Auberius: lale±n AB Ëm A
88
into his narrative abuse of the masses, until his listeners either
cut him short or doze off or desert him in mid speech and drift
away. On a jury he prevents others from reaching a verdict, at
the theatre from watching the play, at dinner from getting on
with their meal. He says ‘It’s hard for me to keep quiet’; that
he has a well-oiled tongue; and that, even if he might appear to
twitter more than a swallow, he will still not shut up. He does
not even mind being the butt of his children’s jokes. They will
not let him go to bed when he wants to. ‘Talk to us, daddy,’ they
say, ‘and send us to sleep’.
89
VIII
LOGOPOIO
1 [ëH d logopoi©a tª Ånqei yeudän l»gwn kaª prxewn,
æn < > boÅletai ¾ logopoiän.]
2 ¾ d logopoi¼ toioÓt» ti o³o eÉqÆ panta täi
j©lwi † katabalÜn t¼ §qo† kaª meidia rwt¦ai “P»qen
Å;” kaª “Lgei ti;” kaª “Pä cei;”, pr¼ toÓ d e«pe±n ke±non 5
“Kalä” pibale±n “ ìErwti m lgeta© ti kain»teron; kaª
3 mn gaq g ti t leg»mena”. kaª oÉk a pokr©naqai
e«pe±n “T© lgei; oÉqn kkoa; dokä mo© e eÉwcein kainän
4 l»gwn”. kaª tin aÉtäi £ tratiÛth £ pa± ìAte©ou toÓ
aÉlhtoÓ £ LÅkwn ¾ rgolbo paragegonÜ x aÉt¦ t¦ 10
5 mch, oÕ jhin khkonai [a¬ mn oÔn najoraª tän l»gwn
6 toiaÓta© e«in aÉtoÓ, æn oÉqeª n coi pilabqai. dihge±-
tai d toÅtou jkwn lgein] Þ Poluprcwn kaª ¾
7 baileÆ mchi nen©khke kaª Kandro zÛgrhtai. kaª n
ephi ti aÉtäi “Æ d taÓta piteÅei;”, j¦ai· [t¼ prgma] 15
boqai gr n t¦i p»lei kaª t¼n l»gon pente©nein kaª pnta
umjwne±n [taÉt gr lgein perª t¦ mch]· kaª polÆn t¼n
8 zwm¼n gegonnai. e²nai d ì autäi kaª hme±on t pr»wpa tän
n to± prgmain· ¾rn gr aÉt¼ pntwn metabeblhk»ta.
<kaª> lgein d ì Þ kaª parakkoe par toÅtoi krupt»men»n 20
Tit. logopoi©a hé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 2 lac. indic. Cichorius 3

eÉqÆ hoc loco P: ante katabalÜn AB 5–6 pro to[u d(e) eipein ekeinon]
kalw P (suppl. Gronewald): perª toÓde e«pe±n kain¼n kaª Þ AB 6
pibale±n Diggle, Stefanis: -Ün AB: [P] ìErwti Kassel: -tn AB: [P]
leg[etai ti kainon kai] P? (suppl. Gronewald) 8 ouqe[n P (sicut AB)
eÉwc¦ai A 10 paragegon¼ B 11 oÕ d: oÎ AB 11 –13 praeeunte
Diels del. Diggle 12 pilabqai Casaubon: -laq- AB 13 d om. A
poluprcwn A 14 mchn A nen©khken AB kandrov Furlanus:
ka- AB (item 23) 15 j¦ai Diggle: jei AB t¼ prgma del. Dig-
gle 16 pente©nein B: -ei AB1 m pnta Casaubon: pnta AB 17
del. Hottinger taÉt a2 , ed. pr.: taÓta AB 18 d ì autäi Edmonds:
d aÉtä(i) AB 19 aÉt¼ Wilamowitz (noluit Foss): -tän B: -t¼n A 20
<kaª> Diggle lgein Blaydes: -ei AB
90
VIII
T H E RU M O U R - M O N G E R
[Rumour-mongering is the framing of false reports and events,
which the rumour-monger wishes < >.]
The Rumour-Monger is the sort of person who, immedi-
ately on encountering his friend, ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ and asks with a smile
‘Where have you come from?’ and ‘Anything to tell me?’ and
‘How are you?’, and before he can say ‘Very well, thank you’
adds ‘You ask whether there is any news? Yes, there is, and fine
news it is too.’ Then giving him no chance to respond he says
‘You really mean to say you have heard nothing? I think I have
a treat in store for you.’ He has a man just back from the actual
battle – a soldier, or a slave of the piper Asteios, or the contractor
Lycon – from whom he claims to have heard [He refers back his
reports to sources such as nobody could challenge. He describes,
as he claims these men are saying] how Polyperchon and the
King have won a military victory and Cassander has been taken
prisoner. And if anyone says to him ‘Do you believe this?’, he
says he does, because it is the talk of the city, discussion [of the
matter] is intensifying, all are of one voice [and are giving the
same version of the battle]. And, he says, there was a great blood-
bath, and the faces of the political leaders support his story –
he has seen for himself how changed they all are. And he claims
to have overheard that they have got someone hidden in a house,
91
tina n o«k©ai, ¢dh pemptn ¡mran ¤konta k Makedon©a,

9 Á pnta taÓta o²de. kaª taÓta diexiÜn pä oeqe piqanä
cetlizein lgwn “Dutuc Kandro· à tala©pwro·
10 nqum¦i t¼ t¦ tÅch; † ll ì oÔn «cur¼ gen»meno† ”. kaª “De±
d ì aÉt¼n m»non e«dnai”. [pi d to± n t¦i p»lei prode- 25
drmhke lgwn.]
11 [tän toioÅtwn nqrÛpwn teqaÅmaka t© pote boÅlontai
logopoioÓnte· oÉ gr m»non yeÅdontai ll kaª luitelä
pallttoui. pollki gr aÉtän o¬ mn n to± bala-
ne©oi peritei poioÅmenoi t ¬mtia pobeblkain, o¬ 30
d ì n t¦i toi pezomac©ai kaª naumac©ai nikänte rmou
d©ka Ýjlkain· e«ª d ì o° kaª p»lei täi l»gwi kat krto
a¬roÓnte paredeipnqhan. pnu d tala©pwron aÉtän ti
t¼ pitdeuma· po©ai gr n toi, po©wi d rgathr©wi,
po©wi d mrei t¦ gor oÉ dihmereÅouin paudn 35
poioÓnte toÆ koÅonta; oÌtw kaª kataponoÓi ta±
yeudolog©ai.]
22 taÓta (alterum) Casaubon: taÓta pnta A: pnta B oeqe de: -qai

AB piqanä om. A 25 d ì B: t ì A d: ge AB 25–6 del. Diels
prodedrmhke B: -dramhknai A 27–37 del. Bloch 27 pote om. A
28 gr B: gr kaª A luitelä de: lu- AB 29 palttoui A
31 d ì n de: d AB 32 p»lei täi Needham (p»lei iam Casaubon):
ple±toi A, -e©- B 34 po©a AB n Ast: oÉ AB toé B (utroque
accentu): - A po©wi . . . rgathr©wi C. Gesner: po±on . . . rgatrion
AB
92
who arrived from Macedonia four days ago and knows the whole
story. As he tells his tale he puts on ever such a convincing show
of pathetic indignation: ‘Unlucky Cassander! Oh you poor man!
Do you see how capricious fortune can be? ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ .’ And he
adds ‘This is for your ears only.’ [But he has run up to everybody
in the city with the story.]
[I wonder what such people mean by their rumour-
mongering. Besides telling lies they end up out of pocket. It often
happens that they lose their cloaks when they have got a crowd
round them at the baths, or let a lawsuit go by default while
winning a land or sea battle in the stoa, or miss dinner while
purporting to take a city by assault. What a wearisome activity
theirs is. There is no stoa, no shop, no corner of the market-
place which they do not haunt the whole day long, making their
listeners faint from exhaustion, so tiring are their fictions.]
93
IX
ANAI CUNTO
1 [ ëH d naicunt©a tª mn, Þ Ârwi labe±n, katajr»nhi
d»xh a«cr neka krdou.]
2 ¾ d na©cunto toioÓt» <ti> o³o präton mn Án
potere± pr¼ toÓton panelqÜn dane©zeqai, e²ta <
3 . kaª> qÅa to± qeo± aÉt¼ mn deipne±n 5
par ì trwi, t d kra potiqnai lª pa, kaª proka-
lemeno t¼n k»louqon doÓnai rton kaª kra p¼ t¦
trapzh ra kaª e«pe±n kou»ntwn pntwn “EÉwcoÓ,
4 T©beie”. kaª ½ywnän d Ëpomimnkein t¼n kreopÛlhn e ti
crimo aÉtäi ggone, kaª thkÜ pr¼ täi taqmäi mli- 10
ta mn kra, e« d m ½toÓn e« t¼n zwm¼n mbale±n, kaª
n mn lbhi, eÔ cei, e« d m, rpa p¼ t¦ trapzh
5 col©kion ma gelän palltteqai. kaª xnoi d aËtoÓ qan
gorai m doÆ t¼ mro <un>qewre±n, gein d kaª toÆ
6 ËoÆ e« tn Ëtera©an kaª t¼n paidagwg»n. kaª Âa wnhmno 15
7 xi ti jrei metadoÓnai keleÓai kaª aËtäi. kaª pª tn
llotr©an o«k©an lqÜn dane©zeqai kriq, pot <d>
cura, kaª taÓta <toÆ> cranta nagkai pojrein
8 pr¼ aËt»n. dein¼ d kaª pr¼ t calk©a t n täi balane©wi
proelqe±n kaª bya rÅtainan boänto toÓ balanw 20
aÉt¼ aËtoÓ katacaqai kaª e«pe±n Âti lloutai † piÜn
kke±† “OÉdem©a oi cri”.
Tit. naicunt©a qé B, perª n- qé A 1 –2 del. Darvaris 2 a«cr
c2 : -oÓ AB krdou e¯neka A 3 <ti> Cobet o³o d: -on AB
4 potere±tai A panelqÜn Grübler: pelqÜn AB dane©zeqai d:
-etai AB lac. indic. Holland 5 kaª> Petersen 7–8 rton kaª kra
p¼ t¦ trapzh ra Diggle: p¼ t¦ tr- rton kaª kra ra A: p¼
t¦ tr- ra kra kaª rton B 9 T©beie Diels (t©bie Mc2 , Salmasius):
t©mie B: timiÛtate A kreo- Porson: krew- AB 13 aËtoÓ Stephanus:
aÉ- AB 14 gorai Diggle: -a AB <un> Cobet 15 ËoÆ
Edmonds (iam u¬oÆ Casaubon, u¬e± cd): Þ A: om. B 16 aËtäi Auberius:
aÉ- AB 17 <d> d 18 <toÆ> Reiske (toÆ cränta M) jrein
A 19 aËt»n Needham: aÉ- AB calk©a Meineke: calke±a AB 20
proelqe±n A: -Ün B 21 aËtoÓ Stephanus: aÉ- AB llutai A 22
kake± B oÉd m©a AB
94
IX
THE SHAMELESS MAN
[Shamelessness may be defined as disregard for a bad reputation
for the sake of gain.]
The Shameless Man is the kind who first of all goes back to
a creditor whose money he is withholding and asks for a loan,
then < . And> when he
has held a sacrifice to the gods he salts the meat and stores it
away and dines out at another’s, and then calls his slave and gives
him bread and meat which he has taken from the table and says
in everyone’s hearing ‘Enjoy your meal, Tibeios’. When he goes
shopping he reminds the butcher of any favours he has done
him, then stands by the scales and throws in some meat, if he
can, otherwise a bone for his soup; and if he is allowed to have it,
well and good; if not, he snatches up some guts from the counter
and makes off with them laughing. When his guests from abroad
have bought theatre seats he joins them at the performance but
does not pay his part of the cost, and next day he even brings
his sons and the slave who looks after them. If he finds someone
taking home goods which he has bought at a bargain price he
asks for a share. He goes to a neighbour’s house and borrows
barley or straw and makes the lender deliver it to his doorstep.
He is also apt to go up to the hot-water tanks in the baths and,
despite the protests of the bath attendant, dip his ladle in and
give himself a shower and then say that he has had his bath ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
‘No thanks to you’.
95
X
MIKROLOGO
1 [ ï Eti d ¡ mikrolog©a jeidwl©a toÓ diaj»rou Ëpr t¼n
kair»n.]
2 ¾ d mikrol»go toioÓt» ti o³o n täi mhnª ¡miwblion
3 paite±n † pª tn o«k©an† . kaª [¾] uitän riqme±n t kÅli-
ka p»a kato ppwke, kaª prceqai lciton t¦i 5
4 ìArtmidi tän undeipnoÅntwn· kaª Âa mikroÓ ti primeno
5 log©zetai pnta < > jkwn e²nai. kaª o«ktou
cÅtran [e²nai] £ lopda katxanto e«prxai p¼ tän
6 pithde©wn. kaª t¦ gunaik¼ kbaloÅh tr©calkon [o³o]
metajrein t keÅh kaª t kl©na kaª t kibwtoÆ kaª 10
7 dijn t kallÅmata. kaª n ti pwl¦i tooÅtou pod»qai
8 ãte m luitele±n täi priamnwi. kaª oÉk n ai oÎte
ukotrag¦ai k toÓ aËtoÓ kpou oÎte di toÓ aËtoÓ
groÓ poreuq¦nai oÎte la©an £ jo©nika tän camaª pept-
9 wk»twn nelqai. kaª toÆ Ârou d ì pikope±qai ¾hmrai 15
10 e« diamnouin o¬ aÉto©. dein¼ d kaª Ëperhmer©an prxai
11 kaª t»kon t»kou. kaª tiän dhm»ta mikr t kra k»ya
12/13 paraqe±nai. kaª ½ywnän mhqn primeno e«elqe±n. kaª pa-
goreÓai t¦i gunaikª mte la crhnnÅein mte llÅcnion
mte kÅminon mte ½r©ganon mte ½l mte tmmata mte 20
qulmata, ll lgein Âti t mikr taÓta poll ti
toÓ niautoÓ.
Tit. mikrolog©a i é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 -blion Diels: -b»lion AB

4 ¾ om. d t ac: t A, te B ko©lika B 7 lac. indic. Herwerden
8 e²nai om. ad 9 o³o del. Blaydes 10 toÆ kib- A 11 kallÅmata
LSJ9 : kalÅmmata AB tooÅtou d: toaÅta AB 12 ai e: a AB
13 aËtoÓ (prius) Stephanus: aÉ- AB kpou (nisi k»pou) A: kopoÓ B
aËtoÓ Stephanus: aÉ- AB 14 peptwk»twn B: keimnwn A 15 d A
17 tiänta A 18 mhdn A 19 crhnnÅein Foss: crwnn- AB 20
½l M: oÉl AB 21 qulmata b: quhl- AB
96
X
THE PENNY-PINCHER
[Penny-pinching is a sparing of expense beyond reasonable
limits.]
The Penny-pincher is the kind of man who asks for repayment
of twopence before the month is out. At a communal dinner he
counts how many cups each guest has drunk, and makes the
smallest preliminary offering to Artemis of any of the diners;
and when asked to settle his account he claims that every item,
however little was paid for it, was <too expensive>. When a
slave breaks a pot or a dish he deducts the cost from his rations.
When his wife drops a penny he shifts the kitchenware and the
couches and the chests and rummages through the rubbish. If
he has something for sale he puts such a high price on it that
the buyer loses by the transaction. He won’t let you eat the figs
from his garden or walk over his land or pick up a fallen olive
or date. He inspects his boundaries every day to see if they have
been altered. He is also liable to pursue overdue debtors and
charge compound interest. When he entertains demesmen he
gives them small cuts of meat. When he goes shopping for food
he returns home without buying anything. He forbids his wife
to lend salt or a lamp-wick or cummin or marjoram or barley
meal or fillets or sacrificial grain, because he claims that little
items like these add up to a tidy sum in the course of a year.
97
14 [kaª t¼ Âlon d tän mikrol»gwn kaª t rguroqka

tin «de±n eÉrwtiÛa kaª t kle± «oumna kaª aÉtoÆ d
joroÓnta lttw tän mhrän t ¬mtia kaª k lhkuq©wn 25
mikrän pnu leijomnou kaª n cräi keiromnou kaª t¼
mon t¦ ¡mra Ëpoluomnou kaª pr¼ toÆ gnaje±
diateinomnou Âpw t¼ ¬mtion aÉto± xei polln g¦n, ¯na
m çupa©nhtai tacÅ.]
23–9 del. Edmonds 24 «oumna Blaydes: «wm- AB 25 mhrän

Stephanus: mikrän AB 27 Ëpoluomnou d: -doum- A1 s B: -dom- A 29
çupa©nhte A
98
[In general, you can see the penny-pinchers’ money-boxes

mouldering and their keys growing rusty, and you can see them
wearing cloaks that don’t cover their thighs, rubbing themselves
down with oil from tiny jars, with their heads shaved, barefoot
in the middle of the day, and insisting to the fullers that their
cloaks should have plenty of earth, so that they don’t get dirty
too soon.]
99
XI
BDELURO
1 [OÉ calep¼n d ti tn bdelur©an dior©aqai· ti gr
paidi pijan kaª pone©dito.]
2 ¾ d bdelur¼ toioÓt» <ti> o³o panta gunaixªn
3 leuqrai naurmeno de±xai t¼ a«do±on. kaª n qetrwi
krote±n Âtan o¬ lloi paÅwntai kaª ur©ttein oÍ ¡dw 5
qewroÓin o¬ pollo©· kaª Âtan iwphi t¼ qatron na-
kÅya ruge±n, ¯na toÆ kaqhmnou poihi metatraj¦nai.
4 kaª plhqoÅh t¦ gor proelqÜn pr¼ t krua £ t
mÅrta £ t kr»drua thkÜ traghmat©zeqai, ma täi
5 pwloÓnti prolalän. kaª kalai d tän pari»ntwn 10
6 ½nomat© tina æi m unqh t©. kaª peÅdonta d poi
7 ¾rän < >. kaª ¡tthmnwi d meglhn d©khn
pi»nti p¼ toÓ dikathr©ou proelqe±n kaª unhq¦nai.
8 kaª ½ywne±n autäi kaª aÉlhtr©da miqoÓqai kaª deiknÅein
d to± pantäi t Ýywnhmna kaª parakale±n pª taÓta. 15
9 kaª dihge±qai protv pr¼ koure±on £ muropÛlion Âti
meqÅkeqai mllei.
Tit. bdelur©a ia é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 <ti> Herwerden 4 na-

ur»meno B 5 paÅontai A 6 pollo© B: loipo© AB2s 7 meta-
traj¦nai poihi A 8 £ B: kaª A 10 pari»ntwn de: par»n-
twn AB 11 poi Casaubon: pou AB 12 lac. indic. d ¡tthmnwi
Schneider: ¡ttwm- AB 14 autäi Casaubon: -t¼n AB 15 ½y- B
16 prot Schneider: prot AB 17 post mllei habent XXX.5–16
AB
100
XI
THE REPULSIVE MAN
[It is not difficult to define Repulsiveness. It is conspicuous and
reprehensible tomfoolery.]
The Repulsive Man is the kind who lifts up his clothes and
exposes himself in front of ladies. At the theatre he applauds
when no one else is applauding and hisses actors whose perfor-
mance the audience is enjoying, and when silence has fallen he
raises his head and burps to make spectators turn round. When
the market is at its busiest he goes to the shops which sell nuts,
myrtleberries or fruit, and stands munching away while chatting
idly to the shopkeeper. He will call out the name of a passer-by
who is a complete stranger to him. And when he sees people
hurrying somewhere on urgent business < >. He will go
up to a man who is leaving court after losing an important case
and offer his congratulations. He buys a meal for himself and
hires music-girls, then shows his shopping to people he meets
and invites them to join him. And he stops in front of the hair-
dresser’s or the perfumer’s and explains that he intends to get
drunk.
101
XII
AKAIRO
1 [ ëH mn oÔn kair©a tªn p©teuxi <cr»nou> lupoÓa toÆ
ntugcnonta.]
2 ¾ d kairo toioÓt» ti o³o coloumnwi proelqÜn
3 nakoinoÓqai. kaª pr¼ tn aËtoÓ rwmnhn kwmzein
4 purttouan. kaª d©khn Ýjlhk»ta ggÅh proelqÜn 5
5 keleÓai aËt¼n nadxaqai. kaª marturwn pare±nai toÓ
6 prgmato ¢dh kekrimnou. kaª keklhmno e« gmou toÓ
7 gunaike©ou gnou kathgore±n. kaª k makr ¾doÓ ¤konta
8 rti parakale±n e« per©paton. dein¼ d kaª progein
9 Ýnhtn ple©w did»nta ¢dh peprak»ti. kaª khko»ta kaª 10
10 memaqhk»ta n©taqai x rc¦ didxwn. kaª proqÅmw d
pimelhq¦nai m boÅleta© ti genqai a«cÅnetai d
11 pe©paqai. kaª qÅonta kaª nal©konta ¤kein t»kon
12 paitwn. kaª matigoumnou o«ktou paretÜ dihge±qai
Âti kaª aËtoÓ pote pa± oÌtw plhg labÜn pgxato. 15
13 kaª parÜn dia©thi ugkroÅein mjotrwn boulomnwn dia-
14 lÅeqai. kaª ½rch»meno yaqai trou mhdpw meqÅonto.
Tit. kair©a ibé (bé A) 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 <cr»nou> Ruge,

Holland 4 aËtoÓ Needham: aÉ- AB 6 aËt¼n Casaubon: aÉ- AB
11 post memaqhk»ta primitus add. tum del. kaª nal©konta (e 13) A
didxwn Coray: didkwn AB proqÅmw Blaydes: pr»qumo AB 13
¤kein Auberius: ¤kwn AB 15 aËtoÓ Needham: aÉ- AB oÌtw ed. pr.:
-w AB 17 ½rch»meno Lycius: -meno AB
102
XII
T H E TA C T L E S S M A N
[Tactlessness is choosing a time which annoys the people one
meets.]
The Tactless Man is the kind who comes for a discussion when
you are busy. He serenades his girlfriend when she is feverish.
He approaches a man who has just forfeited a security deposit
and asks him to stand bail. He arrives to give evidence after a
case is closed. As a guest at a wedding he delivers a tirade against
the female sex. When you have just returned home after a long
journey he invites you to go for a walk. He is liable to bring
along a higher bidder when you have already completed a sale.
When the audience has taken the point he gets up to explain
it all over again. He will enthusiastically try to secure what you
don’t want but haven’t the heart to refuse. When people are
engaged in a sacrifice and incurring heavy expense he arrives
with a request for payment of interest. He stands watching while
a slave is being whipped and announces that a boy of his own
once hanged himself after such a beating. When he assists at an
arbitration he puts the parties at loggerheads, though they are
both eager for a reconciliation. When he wants to dance he takes
hold of a partner who is still sober.
103
XIII
PERIERGO
1 [ ìAmlei <¡> perierg©a d»xei<en n> e²nai propo©h© ti
l»gwn kaª prxewn met ì eÉno©a.]
2 ¾ d per©ergo toioÓt» ti <o³o> pagglleqai na-
3 t m dunetai. kaª ¾mologoumnou toÓ prgmato
4 dika©ou e²nai nte©na legcq¦nai. kaª ple©w d panagkai 5
5 t¼n pa±da kerai £ Âa dÅnantai o¬ par»nte kpie±n. kaª
6 die©rgein toÆ macomnou kaª oÍ oÉ gignÛkei. kaª trap¼n
7 ¡gaqai, e²ta m dÅnaqai eËre±n o³ poreÅetai. kaª t¼n
trathg¼n proelqÜn rwt¦ai p»te mllei parattteqai
8 kaª t© met tn aÎrion paraggele±. kaª proelqÜn täi 10
9 patrª e«pe±n Âti ¡ mthr ¢dh kaqeÅdei n täi dwmat©wi. kaª
pagoreÅonto toÓ «atroÓ Âpw m dÛei o²non täi mala-
kizomnwi ja boÅleqai dipeiran lambnein eÔ pot©ai
10 t¼n kakä conta. kaª gunaik¼ d teleuthh pigryai
pª t¼ mn¦ma toÓ te ndr¼ aÉt¦ kaª toÓ patr¼ kaª t¦ 15
mhtr¼ kaª aÉt¦ <t¦> gunaik¼ toÎnoma kaª podap
11 ti kaª proepigryai Âti pnte oÕtoi crhtoª §an. kaª
½mnÅnai mllwn e«pe±n pr¼ toÆ periethk»ta Âti “Kaª
pr»teron pollki ½mÛmoka”.
Tit. perierg©a ig é 1 –2 del. Bloch 1 <¡> a, Bücheler d»xeien

n c1 : d»xei AB 2 met ì bc2 : met AB 3 <o³o> e 5 nte©na
Immisch: n tini t AB 7 gignÛkei Schneider: gin- AB
trap¼n Diggle: -oÓ AB 8 o³ Casaubon: oÕ AB 10 paraggele±
tamquam u.l. Lycius (-lei c1 e): -llei AB 12 malakizomnwi A: kallw-
pizomnw B 13 eÔ pot©ai Foss: eÉtrep©ai AB 16 aÉt¦ <t¦> d:
aÔ t¦ AB podap Fischer: potap AB 18 peri- B: par- A
104
XIII
T H E OV E R Z E A L O U S M A N
[Overzealousness, you can be sure, would seem to be a well-
meaning appropriation of words and actions.]
The Overzealous Man is the kind who stands up and promises
more than he can deliver. When it is agreed that his case is a fair
one he presses on and loses it. He insists on his slave mixing more
wine than the company can drink. He steps between combatants,
even though they are strangers to him. He leads people on a
short cut, then cannot discover where he is heading. He goes to
the commander-in-chief and asks him when he intends to take
the field and what will be his orders for the day after next. He
goes and tells his father that his mother is already asleep in their
bedroom. When the doctor orders him not to give wine to the
invalid he says he wants to do an experiment and gives the poor
man a good drink. He inscribes on a dead woman’s tombstone
the names of her husband, her father, her mother, her own name
and where she comes from, and adds ‘They were estimable, one
and all.’ When he is about to swear an oath he tells the spectators
‘I am an old hand at oath-taking.’
105
XIV
ANAI QHTO
1 [ï Eti d ¡ naiqh©a, Þ Ârwi e«pe±n, bradut yuc¦ n
l»goi kaª prxein.]
2 ¾ d na©qhto toioÓt» ti o³o logimeno ta±
yjoi kaª kejlaion poia rwtn t¼n parakaqmenon
3 “T© g©gnetai;”. kaª d©khn jeÅgwn kaª taÅthn e«inai mllwn 5
4 pilaq»meno e« gr¼n poreÅeqai. kaª qewrän n täi qe-
5 trwi m»no katale©peqai kaqeÅdwn. kaª poll jagÜn t¦
nukt¼ [kaª] pª qkon nitmeno Ëp¼ t¦ toÓ ge©tono
6 kun¼ dhcq¦nai. kaª labÛn <ti> kaª poqeª aÉt¼ toÓto
7 zhte±n kaª m dÅnaqai eËre±n. kaª paggelqnto aÉtäi Âti 10
teteleÅthk ti aÉtoÓ tän j©lwn, ¯na paragnhtai, kuqrw-
8 pa kaª dakrÅa e«pe±n “ ìAgaq¦i tÅchi”. dein¼ d kaª po-
lambnwn rgÅrion ½jeil»menon mrtura paralabe±n.
9 kaª ceimäno Ànto mceqai täi paidª Âti ikÅou oÉk g»-
10 raen. kaª t paid©a autäi pala©ein nagkzwn kaª 15
11 troczein [kaª] e« k»pon mbale±n. kaª n gräi † aÉto±†
jak¦n ywn dª la e« tn cÅtran mbalÜn brwton
12 poi¦ai. kaª Ìonto toÓ Di¼ e«pe±n “ëHdÅ ge tän trwn
13 Àzei”, Âte d kaª o¬ lloi lgoui “t¦ g¦”. kaª lgont»
tino “P»ou oei kat t ìHr©a pÅla xenhncqai nek- 20
roÅ;” pr¼ toÓton e«pe±n “ í Ooi moª kaª oª gnointo”.
Tit. naiqh©a idé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d c: d kaª A: kaª B

2 l»gwi A 3 o³on A ta± B: ti ta± A 5 g©n- AB 8 kaª
del. Casaubon qkon Schneider (qkon e, Casaubon): qkou AB
nitmeno om. A t¦ toÓ g- kun¼ Diggle: kun¼ t¦ toÓ g- AB
9 <ti> e, J. M. Gesner 10 paggelqnto Cobet: paggllonto
AB 15 autäi Foss: -toÓ AB 16 kaª om. c, del. Casaubon k»pou
mbllein A 18 ¤du (¤d in ras.) A trww B 19 Àzei Casaubon,
Coray: nom©zei AB Âte Coray: Âti AB kaª om. A t¦ g¦ Schnei-
der: p©h AB 20 ìHr©a Meursius: ¬er AB xenecq¦nai A
106
XIV
THE OBTUSE MAN
[Obtuseness may be defined as slowness of mind in speech and
action.]
The Obtuse Man is the kind who does a calculation with his
counters and after computing the total asks the person sitting
next to him ‘What does it come to?’ When he has a lawsuit
to defend and should be going to court he forgets about it and
goes into the country. At the theatre he is found asleep in his seat
when the audience has left. After a large supper he is bitten by his
neighbour’s dog when he gets up and goes to the lavatory during
the night. He searches for some item which he has acquired and
he is unable to find it, even though he stored it away himself.
When a message arrives notifying him of the death of a friend
and inviting him to the funeral, his face darkens and he bursts
into tears and says ‘And the best of luck to him!’ He is also apt
to get witnesses to support him when he is taking repayment of
money which is owed him. He is annoyed with his slave for not
buying cucumbers during the winter. He tires out his children by
forcing them to wrestle and run races with him. In the country
∗ ∗ ∗ when he is boiling lentil soup he puts salt into the pan twice
and makes it inedible. If it is raining he says ‘How sweetly the
stars smell’, when everyone else says ‘the earth’. When someone
remarks ‘You can’t imagine how many bodies have been taken
out to the cemetery through the Erian Gates’, he answers ‘I wish
you and I could have such a windfall.’
107
XV
AUQADH
1 [ ëH d aÉqdei tin pneia ¾mil©a n l»goi.]
2 ¾ d aÉqdh toioÓt» ti o³o rwthqeª “ ëO de±na poÓ
3 tin;” e«pe±n “Prgmat moi m prece”. kaª proagoreuqeª
4 m ntiproeipe±n. <kaª> pwlän ti m lgein to± Ýnoum-
5 noi p»ou n podo±to ll ì rwtn t© eËr©kei. kaª † to± 5
timäi kaª pmpouin e« t ort e«pe±n Âti oÉk n gnoito
6 did»mena† . kaª oÉk cein uggnÛmhn oÎte täi † pÛanti†
7 aËt¼n kou©w oÎte täi ßanti oÎte täi mbnti. kaª j©lwi
d ranon keleÅanti e«enegke±n epa Âti oÉk n do©h Ìteron
¤kein jrwn kaª lgein Âti p»llui kaª toÓto t¼ rgÅrion. 10
8 kaª propta©a n t¦i ¾däi dein¼ kataraqai täi l©qwi.
9/10 kaª [name±nai] oÉk n Ëpome±nai polÆn cr»non oÉqna. kaª
oÎte iai oÎte ç¦in e«pe±n oÎte ½rcaqai n qel¦ai.
11 dein¼ d kaª to± qeo± m peÅceqai.
Tit. aÉqade©a ieé 1 del. Darvaris 3 m om. A parce A

4 <kaª> d 7 cein Lycius: cwn AB 8 aËt¼n Diggle: aÉ- AB
kou©w B 9 epa Diggle: e«pÜn AB 11 dein¼n B 12 name±nai
(-m¦nai B) del. Reiske 13 ai bce: ai B: ai A qel¦ai ed. pr.
(qel¦ai d): qlhe B, -en A
108
XV
THE SELF-CENTRED MAN
[Self-centredness is implacability in social relations displayed in
speech.]
The Self-centred Man is the kind who, when asked ‘Where
is so-and-so?’, replies ‘Don’t bother me’. He will not return a
greeting. When he has something for sale he will not tell cus-
tomers how much he would sell it for but asks what it will fetch.
When people ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ for the festivals, he says that ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ .
He will not forgive anyone who accidentally ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ or jostles him
or treads on his toes. If a friend asks for a contribution to a loan
he at first refuses, then comes along with it and says that this is
more money wasted. When he stubs his toe in the street he is
apt to curse the offending stone. He won’t wait long for anyone.
He refuses to sing or recite or dance. And he is apt to withhold
credit from the gods.
109
XVI
DEI IDAIMWN
1 [ ìAmlei ¡ deiidaimon©a d»xeien <n> e²nai deil©a pr¼ t¼
daim»nion.]
2 ¾ d deiida©mwn toioÓt» ti o³o p¼ <triän> krhnän
poniymeno t ce±ra kaª perirranmeno p¼ ¬eroÓ dj-
3 nhn e« t¼ t»ma labÜn oÌtw tn ¡mran peripate±n. kaª tn 5
¾d»n, n paradrmhi gal¦, m pr»teron poreuq¦nai w
<n> diexlqhi ti £ l©qou tre± Ëpr t¦ ¾doÓ diablhi.
4 kaª pn dhi Àjin n t¦i o«k©ai, n pare©an abzion kal-
5 e±n, n d ¬er¼n ntaÓqa ¡räion eÉqÆ ¬drÅaqai. kaª tän
liparän l©qwn tän n ta± tri»doi pariÜn k t¦ lhkÅqou 10
laion katace±n kaª pª g»nata peÜn kaª prokuna pal-
6 ltteqai. kaª n mÓ qÅlakon lj©twn diatrghi pr¼ t¼n
xhghtn lqÜn rwtn t© cr poie±n· kaª n pokr©nhtai
aÉtäi kdoÓnai täi kulodyhi pirryai, m procein toÅ-
7 toi ll ì potropa©oi kqÅaqai. kaª pukn d tn o«k©an 15
8 kaqrai dein», ëEkth jkwn pagwgn gegonnai. kn
glaÓke bad©zonto aÉtoÓ < >, tartteqai kaª epa
9 “ ìAqhn kre©ttwn” parelqe±n oÌtw. kaª oÎte pib¦nai mn-
mati oÎt ì pª nekr¼n oÎt ì pª lecÜ lqe±n qel¦ai ll t¼ m
10 mia©neqai umjron aËtäi j¦ai e²nai. kaª ta± tetri d kaª 20
ta± bd»mai protxa o²non yein to± ndon, xelqÜn
Tit. p¼ tän toÓ Qeojrtou caraktrwn, ivé caraktr deiidaimon©a V

1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 <n> Schneider 3 p¼ <triän> krhnän
Diggle: picrwn¦n V 4 toÓ ¬eroÓ ut uid. Vac 6 paradrmh c1 ,
Sylburg: peri- V 7 <n> Fischer diablhi Sylburg: -lbh V
8 pn Diggle: n V abzion Schneider: -dion V 9 ¡räion Dübner:
¬eräon Vc , •er-
ë V 12 lj©twn cd: -thn V diatrghi Hirschig:
-jgh V 14 kulo- Blaydes: kuto- V 15 potropa©oi Wyttenbach:
-trapeª V kqÅaqai Bernhard: -lÅ- V 16 dein» Coray, Schneider:
de±n. Þ V 17 lac. indic. Schneider tartteqai Coray, Schneider:
-etai V epou Vc 20 mia©neqai Siebenkees: ma©n- V aËtäi Foss
(aut- Schneider): aÉ- V j¦ai Schneider: ja V 21 bd»mai
Unger: -mi V
110
XVI
THE SUPERSTITIOUS MAN
[Superstition would simply seem to be cowardice with regard to
the divine.]
The Superstitious Man is the kind who washes his hands in
three springs, sprinkles himself with water from a temple font,
puts a laurel leaf in his mouth, and then is ready for the day’s
perambulations. If a weasel runs across his path he will not pro-
ceed on his journey until someone else has covered the ground
or he has thrown three stones over the road. When he sees a
snake in his house he invokes Sabazios if it is the red-brown one,
and if it is the holy one he sets up a hero-shrine there and then.
Whenever he passes the shiny stones at the crossroads he pours
oil from his flask over them and falls to his knees and kisses
them before leaving. If a mouse nibbles through a bag of barley
he goes to the expounder of sacred law and asks what he should
do; and if the answer is that he should give it to the tanner to
sew up he disregards the advice and performs an apotropaic
sacrifice. He is apt to purify his house frequently, claiming that it
is haunted by Hekate. If owls < > while he is walking he
becomes agitated and says ‘Athena is quite a power’ before going
on. He refuses to step on a tombstone or go near a dead body
or a woman in childbirth, saying that he cannot afford to risk
contamination. On the fourth and the seventh of the month he
orders his household to boil down some wine, then goes out and
111
gorai murr©na, libanwt»n, p»pana kaª e«elqÜn ew

11 tejanoÓn toÆ ëErmajrod©tou Âlhn tn ¡mran. kaª Âtan
nÅpnion dhi poreÅeqai pr¼ toÆ ½neirokr©ta, pr¼ toÆ
mntei, pr¼ toÆ ½rniqok»pou rwtwn t©ni qeän £ qei 25
12 eÎceqai de±. kaª teleqh»meno pr¼ toÆ ìOrjeotelet
kat m¦na poreÅeqai met t¦ gunaik» (n d m colzhi
13 ¡ gun, met t¦ t©tqh) kaª tän paid©wn. [kaª tän perir-
14 rainomnwn pª qaltth pimelä d»xeien n e²nai.] kn pote
p©dhi kor»dwi temmnon tän pª ta± tri»doi < > 30
pelqÜn kat kejal¦ loÅaqai kaª ¬ere©a kala k©l-
15 lhi £ kÅlaki keleÓai aËt¼n perikaqrai. <kaª> main»menon
d «dÜn £ p©lhpton jr©xa e« k»lpon ptÅai.
22 murr©na Diels: mur- V libanwt»n Foss: -tän V p»pana

Foss: p©naka V 23 tejanoÓn Siebenkees: -än V 28 paid©wn (non
pa©dwn) uoluit V 28–9 del. Bloch 30 temmnon Foss: -wn V lac.
indic. Casaubon 31 pelqÜn cd: pelq»ntwn V, p- Vc 32 aËt¼n
Stephanus: aÉ- V <kaª> Darvaris 33 d Blaydes: te V
112
buys myrtle-wreaths, frankincense and cakes, and on his return

spends the whole day garlanding the Hermaphrodites. When
he has a dream he visits not only dream-analysts but also seers
and bird-watchers to ask which god or goddess he should pray
to. He makes a monthly visit to the Orphic ritualists to take
the sacrament, accompanied by his wife (or if she is busy, the
nurse) and his children. [He would seem to be one of the people
who scrupulously sprinkle themselves at the seashore.] If ever
he observes a man wreathed with garlic < > the
offerings at the crossroads, he goes away and washes from head
to toe, then calls for priestesses and tells them to purify him
with a squill or a puppy. If he sees a madman or an epileptic he
shudders and spits into his chest.
113
XVII
MEMYIMOIRO
1 [ ï Etin ¡ memyimoir©a pit©mhi par t¼ pro¦kon tän
dedomnwn.]
2 ¾ d memy©moiro toi»de ti o³o pote©lanto mer©da
toÓ j©lou e«pe±n pr¼ t¼n jronta “ ìEjq»nh moi toÓ zwmoÓ
3 kaª toÓ o«nar©ou oÉk pª de±pnon kala”. kaª Ëp¼ t¦ ta©- 5
ra katajiloÅmeno e«pe±n “Qaumzw e« Æ kaª p¼ t¦ yuc¦
4 Àntw me jile±”. kaª täi Diª ganakte±n oÉ di»ti Ìei ll
5 di»ti Ìteron. kaª eËrÜn n t¦i ¾däi ballntion e«pe±n “ ìAll ì
6 oÉ qhaur¼n hÌrhka oÉdpote”. kaª primeno ndrpodon
xion kaª poll dehqeª toÓ pwloÓnto “Qaumzw” e«pe±n “e 10
7 ti Ëgi oÌtw xion Ûnhmai”. kaª pr¼ t¼n eÉaggeliz»m-
enon Âti “ë U» oi ggonen” e«pe±n Âti “ ðAn proq¦i ‘Kaª t¦
8 oÉ©a t¼ ¤miu petin’ lhq¦ re±”. kaª d©khn nika kaª
labÜn pa t yjou gkale±n täi gryanti t¼n l»gon
9 Þ poll paraleloip»ti tän dika©wn. kaª rnou e«ene- 15
cqnto par tän j©lwn kaª jant» tino “ëIlar¼ qi”,
“Kaª pä” e«pe±n “Âte de± trgÅrion podoÓnai ktwi kaª
cwrª toÅtwn crin ½je©lein Þ hÉergethmnon;”.
Tit. memyimoir©a izé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 t¼ pro¦kon (cd) tän Ast:

tän proh (de litt. suprascriptis non liquet) V 4 jq»nhe Pauw: -a V
6 katajiloÅmeno V1 c : jil- V 7 Àntw Blaydes: oÌtw V 9 hÌrhka
Wilamowitz: eÌ- V 10–11 e ti Auberius: Âti V 11 oÌtw V 12 Ë»
Diggle: u¬» V oi Vc : ou V? 13 petin cd: pthn V d©khn
Sylburg: n©khn V 14 gkale±n Cantabr.a.c. , Stephanus: -e± V 17 Âte
Casaubon: Âti V 18 hÉ- Diggle: eÉ- V
114
XVII
T H E U N G R AT E F U L G RU M B L E R
[Ungrateful Grumbling is unsuitable criticism of what you have
been given.]
The Ungrateful Grumbler is the kind of man who says to
someone bringing him a piece of food sent by a friend ‘He did
me out of the soup and wine by not inviting me to dinner.’
When the woman he keeps is kissing him he says ‘I wonder if
your affection really comes from the heart.’ He complains to
Zeus not because it is raining but because it did not rain sooner.
If he finds a purse in the street he says ‘But I have never found
a treasure.’ When he has bought a slave at a bargain price after
long haggling he says ‘I wonder how healthy it can be if I got
it so cheap.’ To the person who brings him the good news ‘You
have a son’ he says ‘If you add “And you have lost half your
fortune” you will not be far wrong.’ When he wins a unanimous
verdict in court he finds fault with his speech-writer for leaving
out many of the arguments in his favour. When his friends have
got together a loan and one of them says ‘Cheer up’, he answers
‘How do you mean? When I have to refund every one of you
and on top of that be grateful for the favour?’
115
XVIII
API TO
1 [ ï Etin mlei <¡> pit©a Ëp»lhy© ti dik©a kat
pntwn.]
2 ¾ d pito toioÓt» ti o³o pote©la t¼n pa±da
½ywnonta teron pa±da pmpein [t¼n] peu»menon p»ou
3 pr©ato. kaª jrein aÉt¼ t¼ rgÅrion kaª kat tdion kaq©- 5
4 zwn riqme±n p»on t©. kaª tn guna±ka tn aËtoÓ rwtn
katake©meno e« kkleike tn kibwt¼n kaª e« emantai t¼
kulike±on kaª e« ¾ mocl¼ e« tn qÅran tn aÉle©an mbblh-
tai· kaª n ke©nh j¦i, mhdn ¨tton aÉt¼ nat gumn¼ k
tän trwmtwn kaª nup»dhto t¼n lÅcnon ya taÓta 10
pnta peridramÜn pikyaqai kaª oÌtw m»li Ìpnou tug-
5 cnein. kaª toÆ ½je©lonta aËtäi rgÅrion met martÅrwn
paite±n toÆ t»kou, Âpw m dÅnwntai xarnoi genqai.
6 kaª t¼ ¬mtion d kdoÓnai dein¼ oÉc Á <n> bltita
7 rghtai ll ì oÕ n §i xio gguht [toÓ knajw]. kaª 15
Âtan ¤khi ti a«th»meno kpÛmata mlita mn m doÓnai,
n d ì ra ti o«ke±o §i kaª nagka±o m»non oÉ purÛa kaª
8 ta kaª ced¼n gguhtn labÜn cr¦ai. kaª t¼n pa±da d
kolouqoÓnta keleÅein aËtoÓ Àpiqen m bad©zein ll ì m-
9 proqen, ¯na jultthi aÉt¼n m n t¦i ¾däi podri. kaª to± 20
e«lhj»i ti par ì aËtoÓ kaª lgoui “P»ou; katqou· oÉ gr
colzw pw” e«pe±n “Mhdn pragmateÅou· gÜ gr, <w>
n Æ colhi, unakolouqw”.
Tit. ih pit©a 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 <¡> c2 , Darvaris 4 ½y-

wnonta c1 d: -anta V 4 t¼n om. cd, del. Camotius 5 jrein
Coray: jrwn V 6 aËtoÓ Stephanus: aÉ- V 8 kulike±on Gale:
kulioÅcion V 12 aËtäi Stephanus: aÉ- V 13 dÅnwntai Cantabr.:
dÅnainto V 14 (kd)oÓnai Vm : kdÓnai V Á Salmasius: Þ V
<n> Darvaris 15 rghtai Vc : -etai V? oÕ n Ast: Âtan V
toÓ knajw del. Pauw 18 cr¦ai Schneider: crei V 19 aËtoÓ
Stephanus: aÉ- V 20 jultthi Hirschig: -htai V aÉt¼n Needham:
-tä V podri Hirschig: -drh V 21 aËtoÓ Diels: aÉ- V 22
e«pe±n Madvig: pmpein V <w> Madvig
116
XVIII
T H E D I S T RU S T F U L M A N
[Distrust really is a presumption of wrongdoing directed against
everyone.]
The Distrustful Man is the kind who despatches his slave to
do the shopping and then sends another to find out how much
he paid. He carries his own money with him and sits down every
two hundred yards to count it. While lying in bed he asks his wife
whether she has closed the chest and sealed the sideboard and
whether the front door has been bolted, and if she says yes he
throws off the bedclothes anyway and gets up with nothing on
and lights the lamp and runs around in his bare feet to inspect
everything in person, and so he hardly gets any sleep. When
he asks his debtors for interest payments he has his witnesses
present, so that they cannot deny the debt. When his cloak needs
attention he will not give it to the person who does the best job
but to the one who is suitably insured. When somebody comes
asking for the loan of cups, he would rather say no altogether, but
if he has to oblige a member of the family or a close relative he
will lend them only after he has all but checked the quality and
weight of the metal and practically got someone to guarantee
the cost of replacement. He tells the slave accompanying him to
walk in front and not behind, so that he can watch that he doesn’t
run off on the way. When people who have bought something
from him say ‘How much? Put it on account. I’m not free just
yet’, he replies ‘Don’t trouble yourself. I’ll keep you company
until you are.’
117
XIX
DUCERH
1 [ ï Etin ¡ ducreia qerapeu©a Ûmato lÅph parakeua-
tik.]
2 ¾ d ducer toioÓt» ti o³o lpran cwn kaª lj¼n kaª
toÆ Ànuca mlana peripate±n kaª j¦ai taÓta e²nai aËtäi
uggenik rrwtmata· cein gr aÉt kaª t¼n patra kaª 5
t¼n pppon kaª oÉk e²nai çidion Ë¼n e« t¼ gno Ëpobl-
3 leqai. mlei d dein¼ kaª lkh cein n to± ntiknhm©oi kaª
propta©mata n to± daktÅloi kaª m qerapeÓai ll ì
4 ai qhriwq¦nai. kaª t macla d jqeirÛdei kaª dae©a
cein cri pª polÆ tän pleurän kaª toÆ ½d»nta mlana 10
kaª qiomnou [ãte dunteukto e²nai kaª hd. kaª t
5 toiaÓta.] <kaª> q©wn pomÅtteqai, qÅwn m ì daxqai,
prolalän <©alon> porr©ptein p¼ toÓ t»mato, ma
p©nwn proeruggnein, nap»nipto n to± trÛmai met
t¦ gunaik¼ aËtoÓ koimqai, la©wi apräi n balane©wi 15
6 crÛmeno ujeoÓ Àzeqai. kaª citwn©kon pacÆn kaª ¬mtion
j»dra lept¼n kaª khl©dwn met¼n nabal»meno e« gorn
xelqe±n.
Tit. iq ducere©a 1–2 del. Darvaris 3 o³o cd: o³on V 4 m-

lana Herwerden: megl(ou) V aËtäi Stephanus: aÉ- V 5 aÉt
Meier: -t¼n V 6 Ë¼n Diggle (u¬¼n Diels): aÉt¼n V 9 jqeirÛdei
Diggle: qhriÛdei V 11 ãte . . . hd del. Immisch 11 –12 kaª
t toiaÓta del. Schneider 12 <kaª> Foss m ì daxqai Diels:
ma d ì rxaqai V 13 <©alon> Diggle 14 p©nwn Casaubon: piÜn
V nap»nipto Badham: nap©ptonto V 15 aËtoÓ Foss: aÉ- V
16 ujeoÓ Àzeqai Diggle: jÅzeqai V 17 nabal»meno Stephanus:
-ball- V
118
XIX
THE OFFENSIVE MAN
[Offensiveness is a distressing neglect of the person.]
The Offensive Man is the kind who parades about with scaly
and blanched skin and black nails and claims that these are con-
genital ailments; his father and grandfather had them, and it
makes it difficult to palm off an illegitimate son on the family.
He is quite apt to have sores on his shins and lesions on his toes,
and instead of treating them he lets them fester. His armpits are
infested with lice and their hair extends over much of his sides,
and his teeth are black and rotten [so that he is no pleasure to
meet. And so on.] He wipes his nose while eating, scratches him-
self while sacrificing, discharges <spit> from his mouth while
talking, belches at you while drinking, does not wash before going
to bed with his wife, and uses rancid oil at the baths so that he
reeks of the pig-sty. He goes out to the market wearing thick
underwear and a thin cloak full of stains.
119
7 <. . . . . .> kaª e« ½rniqok»pou t¦ mhtr¼ xelqoÅh bla-

8 jhm¦ai. kaª eÉcomnwn kaª pend»ntwn kbale±n t¼ potr- 20
9 ion kaª gelai ãper te±»n ti pepoihkÛ. kaª aÉloÅmeno
d krote±n ta± cerª m»no tän llwn kaª unteret©zein kaª
10 pitimn t¦i aÉlhtr©di Âti oÌtw tacÆ paÅato. kaª po-
ptÅai d boul»meno Ëpr t¦ trapzh proptÅai täi
o«noc»wi. 25
19–25 ad caput alienum rettulit Pauw 19 e« cd: e« x V 20 kbale±n

Casaubon (noluit Sylburg): mb- V 21 ãper te±on Bernhard: Þ
tertion V 22 unteret©zein Vc : -term©zein V? 23 Âti Coray: t© V
oÌtw Coray: oÉ V paÅato Kayser: paÅaito V
120
(from a different sketch)

. . . He blasphemes when his mother has gone out to the augur’s.
During a prayer and the pouring of a libation he drops his cup
and laughs as if he had done something clever. When a girl is
playing the pipes he claps and hums in solo accompaniment,
and then he blames her for stopping prematurely. When he is
minded to spit he spits across the table and hits the wine-waiter.
121
XX
AHDH
1 [ ï Etin ¡ hd©a, Þ Ârwi labe±n, nteuxi lÅph poihtik

neu blbh.]
2 ¾ d hd toioÓt» ti o³o ge©rein rti kaqeÅdonta e«-
3 elqÜn ¯na aÉtäi lal¦i. kaª ngeqai ¢dh mllonta kwlÅein.
4/5 kaª proelq»ntwn de±qai pice±n w n peripathi. kaª 5
t¼ paid©on t¦ t©tqh jel»meno, maÛmeno it©zein aÉt¼
kaª Ëpokor©zeqai poppÅzwn kaª popanourg©an toÓ pp-
6 pou kalän. kaª q©wn d ma dihge±qai Þ llboron piÜn
nw kaª ktw kaqrqh kaª <toÓ> zwmoÓ toÓ parakeimnou
7 n to± Ëpocwrmain aËtäi melantra ¡ col. kaª rwt¦- 10
ai d dein¼ nant©on tän o«ketän “Ep ì , å mmmh, Ât ì ßdine
8 kaª tikt me, t© † ¡mra† ;” kaª Ëpr aÉt¦ d lgein Þ ¡dÅ
ti kaª < >, mj»tera d oÉk conta oÉ çidion nqr-
9 wpon labe±n. < > kaª Âti yucr¼n Ìdwr tª par ì
aËtäi lakka±on kaª [Þ] k¦po lcana poll cwn kaª 15
pal [ãte e²nai yucr»n] kaª mgeiro eÔ t¼ Àyon keu-
zwn, kaª Âti ¡ o«k©a aËtoÓ pandoke±»n ti· metn gr e©·
kaª toÆ j©lou aËtoÓ e²nai t¼n tetrhmnon p©qon· eÔ poiän
10 gr aÉtoÆ oÉ dÅnaqai mpl¦ai. kaª xen©zwn d de±xai
t¼n pariton aËtoÓ po±» t© ti täi undeipnoÓnti· kaª 20
†
parakalän† d pª toÓ pothr©ou e«pe±n Âti t¼ tryon toÆ
par»nta parekeÅatai kaª Âti taÅthn, n keleÅwin, ¾
pa± mteii par toÓ pornobokoÓ ¢dh, “Âpw pnte Ëp ì
aÉt¦ aÉlÛmeqa kaª eÉjrainÛmeqa.”
Tit. hd©a ké 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 o³o cd: o³on V 4 ¢dh

Schneider: d V 5 proelq»ntwn Immisch, Holland: proelqÜn V
7 popanourg©an Diggle: panourgiän V 8 llboron Vc : l- V
9 kaqrqh Navarre: kaqarqe©h V <toÓ> Auberius 10 -mai V
aËtäi Needham: aÉ- V 11 o«ketän Courier: o«ke©wn V Ep ì å Diels:
epou V, (ep)er Vs 13 lac. (ante ka©) indic. Hartung 14 lac. indic. Hot-
tinger 15 aËtäi Needham: aÉ- V Þ del. Diggle, Stefanis 16 del.
Bloch 17 aËtoÓ Cantabr.: aÉ- V metn gr e© Foss: met gr ti
V 18 aËtoÓ Foss: aÉ- V 20 aËtoÓ Casaubon: aÉ- V 22 taÅthn
Diggle: aÉtn V 23 Âpw Schneider: pä V
122
XX
T H E D I S AG R E E A B L E M A N
[Disagreeableness may be defined as contact which gives pain
without causing harm.]
The Disagreeable Man is the kind who comes in and wakes
you up for a chat when you have just gone to sleep. He detains
people who are ready to set sail. He asks visitors to wait until he
has gone for a stroll. He takes his baby from the nurse and feeds
it food which he has chewed himself, and mouths ‘pop-o-pop-o-
pop’ to it and calls it ‘Pop’s bun in the oven’. At dinner he tells
how he was cleaned out top and bottom after drinking hellebore,
and the bile from his faeces was blacker than the broth on the
table. He is prone to ask in front of the slaves ‘Mummy, tell me,
when you were in labour and bringing me into the world, what
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ?’. And he says of her that it is pleasant < >, and
it is not easy to find a person who does not have both. <He
says > and that he has cold water in a cistern at home
and a garden with plenty of succulent vegetables and a cook who
prepares a good dish, and that his house is an inn (it is always
full) and his friends are a leaking jar (however many good turns
he does them he can’t fill them up). He shows off the qualities
of his parasite to the guest at dinner. And ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ over the wine
he says that there is something available to amuse the company,
and, if they give the order, the slave will go and fetch her right
away from the brothel-keeper, ‘so that she can play for us and
give us all a good time’.
123
XXI
MIKROFILOTIMO
1 [ ëH d mikrojilotim©a d»xei<en n> e²nai Àrexi tim¦ neleÅ-
qero.]
2 ¾ d mikrojil»timo toioÓt» ti o³o poudai pª de±-
pnon klhqeª par ì aÉt¼n t¼n kalanta katake©meno deipn¦-
3/4 ai. kaª t¼n Ë¼n poke±rai gagÜn e« DeljoÅ. kaª pimelh- 5
5 q¦nai d Âpw aËtäi ¾ k»louqo A«q©oy tai. kaª podidoÆ
6 mnn rgur©ou kain¼n † poi¦ai† podoÓnai. kaª koloiäi d
ndon trejomnwi dein¼ klimkion pr©aqai kaª p©dion
calkoÓn poi¦ai Á cwn pª toÓ klimak©ou ¾ koloi¼ phd-
7 etai. kaª boÓn qÅa t¼ prometwp©dion pantikrÆ t¦ 10
e«»dou propattaleÓai tmmasi megloi perida,
8 Âpw o¬ e«i»nte dwin Âti boÓn que. kaª pompeÅa met
tän ¬ppwn t mn lla pnta doÓnai täi paidª penegke±n
okade, nabal»meno d qo«mtion n to± mÅwyi kat tn
9 gorn peripate±n. kaª kunar©ou d Melita©ou teleutan- 15
to aÉtäi mn¦ma poi¦ai kaª thl©dion ta pigryai
10 “† Kldo† Melita±o”. kaª naqeª dktulon calkoÓn n
täi ìAsklhpie©wi toÓton ktr©bein tejanoÓn le©jein ¾hm-
11 rai. mlei d kaª undioikaqai met tän prutnewn Âpw
pagge©lhi täi dmwi t ¬er, kaª parekeuamno lamp- 20
r¼n ¬mtion kaª tejanwmno parelqÜn e«pe±n “ ö W ndre
ìAqhna±oi, qÅomen o¬ prutnei [t ¬er] t¦i Mhtrª tän qeän
t Galxia, kaª t ¬er kal, kaª Ëme± dceqe t gaq”.
kaª taÓta pagge©la pelqÜn okade dihgaqai t¦i
aËtoÓ gunaikª Þ kaq ì Ëperboln hÉhmrei. 25
Tit. mikrojilotim©a kaé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d»xeien n c1 : d»xei V

5 Ë¼n Diggle: u¬¼n V 6 aËtäi Needham: aÉ- V 7 mnn Vc : m•n
V rgur©ou Vc : rgÅrion V? 11 propattaleÓai cd: -äai V
14 nabal»meno Stephanus: -ball- V 16 ta Triller: poia V
17 dktulon Nast, Naber: daktÅlion V 18 tejanoÓn Meier: -oÓnta
V 19 undioikaqai cd: -©aqai V met Diggle, Stefanis: par V
22 t ¬er del. Schneider 23 Galxia Wilamowitz: gr xia V 24
pelqÜn Diggle: piÜn V okade dihg- Reiske: dihg- okade V 25
aËtoÓ Foss (au- cd): aÉ- V hÉhmrei post Needham (eÉ-) Diggle: eÉhme-
re±n V
124
XXI
THE MAN OF PETTY AMBITION
[Petty Ambition would seem to be a mean desire for prestige.]
The Man of Petty Ambition is the kind who, when he gets
an invitation to dinner, is eager to sit next to the host. He takes
his son to Delphi to have his hair cut. He goes to the trouble of
acquiring an Aethiopian attendant. When he pays back a mina of
silver he pays it back in new coin. He is apt to buy a little ladder
for his domestic jackdaw and make a little bronze shield for it to
carry when it hops onto the ladder. When he has sacrificed an
ox he nails up the skull opposite the entrance to his house and
fastens long ribbons around it, so that his visitors can see that
he has sacrificed an ox. After parading with the cavalry he gives
his slave the rest of his equipment to take home, then throws
back his cloak and strolls through the marketplace in his spurs.
On the death of his Maltese dog he builds a funeral monument
and sets up a little slab with the inscription ‘ ∗ ∗ from Malta’.
He dedicates a bronze finger in the sanctuary of Asclepius and
does not let a day pass without polishing, garlanding, and oiling
it. And you can be sure that he will arrange with the executive
committee of the Council that he should be the one to make
the public report on the conduct of religious business, and will
step forward wearing a smart white cloak, with a crown on his
head, and say ‘Men of Athens, my colleagues and I celebrated
the Milk-Feast with sacrifices to the Mother of the Gods. The
sacrifices were propitious. We beg you to accept your blessings.’
After making this report he goes home and tells his wife that he
had an extremely successful day.
125
XXII
ANELEUQERO
1 [ ëH d neleuqer©a tª † periou©a ti p¼ jilotim©a
dapnhn coua† .]
2 ¾ d neleÅqero toioÓt» ti o³o nika tragwido±
tain©an xul©nhn naqe±nai täi DionÅwi, pigrya mlani
3 aËtoÓ t¼ Ànoma. kaª pid»ewn gignomnwn n täi dmwi 5
4 nat iwp¦i k toÓ mou pelqe±n. kaª kdidoÆ aËtoÓ
qugatra toÓ mn ¬ere©ou pln tän ¬erewÅnwn t kra
pod»qai, toÆ d diakonoÓnta n to± gmoi o«ko©tou
5 miqÛaqai. kaª trihrar<cän t mn toÓ> kuberntou
trÛmata aËtäi pª toÓ katatrÛmato Ëpot»rnuqai, 10
6 t d aËtoÓ potiqnai. kaª t paid©a d dein¼ m pmyai
e« didaklou, Âtan §i [toÓ potiqnai kaª t paid©a]
7 Moue±a, ll j¦ai kakä cein, ¯na m umblwntai. kaª x
gor d ½ywna [t kra] aÉt¼ jrein t lcana n
8 täi prokolp©wi. kaª ndon mnein Âtan kdäi qo«mtion 15
9 plÓnai. kaª j©lou ranon ullgonto kaª dihggelmnou
aÉtäi, proi»nta pro·d»meno pokmya k t¦ ¾doÓ tn
10 kÅklwi okade poreuq¦nai. kaª t¦i gunaikª d t¦i autoÓ
pro±ka e«enegkamnhi m pr©aqai qerpainan ll
miqoÓqai e« t x»dou k t¦ gunaike©a paidrion t¼ 20
11 unakolouq¦on. kaª t Ëpodmata palimpxei kekattumna
Tit. neleuqer©a kb é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 nika Lycius: nik¦ai V

tragwido± Casaubon: -wdoÆ V 4 pigrya Vc : -y•• V mlani
Madvig: mn V 5 aËtoÓ Stephanus: aÉ- V gin- V n täi dmwi
Meier: k toÓ dmou V 6 iwp¦i Needham: iwpn £ V aËtoÓ
Stephanus: aÉ- V 7 ¬erewÅnwn Meier: ¬erwn V 9 lacunae signum
Vm cän t toÓ suppl. cd, mn Diels 10 trÛmata aËtäi Meier:
träma taut¼n V Ëpot»rnuqai Blaydes: -rnuqai V 11 aËtoÓ
d, Stephanus: aÉ- V 12 del. Meier 13 Moue±a Schneider: -©a
V 14 del. Diels 16 plÓnai Hirschig: kpl- V dihggelmnou Hol-
land: dieilegmnou V 18 autoÓ Vc : aÉ- V 19 qerpainan cd: qer-
a©paina V 20 paidrion Diggle: paid©on V 21 unakolouq¦on
fere Siebenkees: -an V palimpxei Schneider: plin pxei V
126
XXII
THE ILLIBERAL MAN
[Illiberality is ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ambition ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ expense.]
The Illiberal Man is one who dedicates a strip of wood to
Dionysus after winning the prize for the best tragic chorus and
inscribes his own name on it in ink. When emergency donations
are being promised in the Assembly he gets up and slips quietly
out. At his daughter’s wedding he sells the meat from the sacrifice
(all but the priest’s share) and tells the hired waiters to bring
their own food. When he is serving as commander of a trireme
he spreads the helmsman’s mattress on the deck for himself and
stows his own away. He will not send his children to school when
there is a festival of the Muses, but will claim that they are ill,
so that they do not have to take a contribution. When he has
been shopping in the market he carries the vegetables himself
in his front pocket. He stays in the house when he sends out his
cloak to the laundry. If word has reached him that a friend is
raising a subscription, he cuts down a side-street on seeing him
approach and takes a roundabout way home. Even though his
wife brought him a dowry he will not buy her a maid, but instead
hires a girl from the women’s market to keep her company on
her outings. He wears shoes whose soles have been stitched back
127
12 jore±n kaª lgein Âti krato oÉdn diajrei. kaª nat tn
13 o«k©an kallÓnai kaª t kl©na kkor©ai. kaª kaqez»meno
paratryai t¼n tr©bwna, Án aÉt¼n jore±.
23 kkor©ai Casaubon: -¦ai V kaqez»meno cd: -on V 24 aÉt¼n

Münsterberg: -¼ V
128
on and claims that they are as strong as horn. When he gets up

in the morning he sweeps the house and debugs the couches.
When he sits down he turns up his tunic, which is all that he is
wearing.
129
XXIII
ALAZWN
1 [ ìAmlei d ¡ lazone©a d»xei<en n> e²nai propo©h© ti
gaqän oÉk Àntwn.]
2 ¾ d lazÜn toioÓt» ti o³o n täi de©gmati thkÜ
dihge±qai xnoi Þ poll crmata aËtäi tin n t¦i
qaltthi· kaª perª t¦ rga©a t¦ daneitik¦ diexinai 5
¡l©kh, kaª aÉt¼ Âa elhje kaª polÛleke· kaª ma taÓta
pleqr©zwn pmpein t¼ paidrion e« tn trpezan, <mhd
3 mi> dracm¦ aÉtäi keimnh. kaª unodoip»rou d po-
laÓai n t¦i ¾däi dein¼ lgwn Þ met ì ìAlexndrou t-
rateÅato kaª <o«ke©>w aÉtäi e²ce kaª Âa liqok»llhta 10
potria kom©ato· kaª perª tän tecnitän tän n t¦i ìA©ai
Âti belt©ou e«ª tän n t¦i EÉrÛphi mjibht¦ai· kaª
4 taÓta j¦ai oÉdamo± k t¦ p»lew podedhmhkÛ. kaª
grmmata d e«pe±n Þ preti par ì ìAntiptrou tritt d
lgonta paragenqai aËt¼n e« Makedon©an· kaª didomnh 15
aËtäi xagwg¦ xÅlwn teloÓ Âti prnhtai, Âpw
mhd ì Ëj ì n¼ ukojanthq¦i † peraitrw jilooje±n pro¦ke
5 Maked»i† . kaª n t¦i itode©ai d <e«pe±n> Þ ple©w £ pnte
tlanta aËtäi gneto t nalÛmata did»nti to± p»roi
6 tän politän· naneÅein gr oÉ dÅnaqai. kaª gnÛtwn d 20
parakaqhmnwn keleÓai qe±nai t yjou na aÉtän kaª
Tit. lazone©a kg é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d»xeien n c1 : d»xei V

propo©hi Auberius: prodok©a V 3 de©gmati Casaubon: diazeÅgmati
V 4 dihge±qai cd: -e±to V aËtäi Morel (aÉ- iam Lycius): aÉto± V
5 qaltthi cd: -- V 7–8 <mhd mi> Diggle 9 met ì ìAlexndrou
Auberius: met eÉndrou V 10 o«ke©w Cobet: Þ V 11 kom©ato
Reiske: k»mie V 13 j¦ai Coray: yhj¦ai V oÉdamo± Cobet: -oÓ V
15 paragenqai cd: -g©neqai V aËt¼n Gale: aÉ- V makedon©an cd:
makedén V 16 aËtäi Needham: aÉ- V prnhtai Cobet: pe©rhtai V
18 itode©ai Casaubon: podii V <e«pe±n> Diggle ple©w cd: -ou
V 19 aËtäi Needham: aÉ- V gneto Hanow: gnoito V
130
XXIII
T H E B OA S T F U L M A N
[Boastfulness would really seem to be a pretension to non-
existent advantages.]
The Boastful Man will stand in the market at the Piraeus
and tell foreigners that he has a good deal of money invested
at sea; he will explain how vast is the money-lending business
and how much he has personally gained and lost; and while he
is exaggerating this beyond all proportion he will send his slave
to the bank, although there is <not even a single> drachma in
his account. He is apt to gull the person he is walking with by
telling how he served with Alexander and was on familiar terms
with him and what a number of jewelled cups he brought home;
and he will maintain that the craftsmen in Asia are better than
those in Europe – all this even though he has never been any-
where outside the city. He will say that he has had no fewer than
three letters from Antipater telling him to come to Macedonia,
and that he has been offered the right to export timber duty-
free, but has declined, so that not a soul can bring a trumped
up charge against him ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . And he will claim that
during the food shortage he spent more than five talents on
handouts to destitute citizens – he just could not say no. When
he finds himself sitting next to complete strangers he will ask one
of them to work the calculator, and then he does an addition,
131
poän kat cil©a kaª kat m©an kaª protiqeª piqanä

ktoi toÅtwn ½n»mata poi¦ai kaª dka tlanta· kaª
taÓta j¦ai e«enhncqai e« rnou aËtäi· kaª t tri-
hrarc©a e«pe±n Âti oÉ t©qhin oÉd t leitourg©a Âa 25
7 leleitoÅrghke. kaª proelqÜn d toÆ ¯ppou toÆ gaqoÆ
8 to± pwloÓi propoiaqai Ýnhtin. kaª pª t khn
lqÜn ¬matim¼n zht¦ai e« dÅo tlanta kaª täi paidª
9 mceqai Âti t¼ cru©on oÉk cwn aËtäi kolouqe±. kaª n
miqwt¦i o«k©ai o«kän j¦ai taÅthn e²nai tn patrÛian 30
pr¼ t¼n m e«d»ta kaª Âti mllei pwle±n aÉtn di t¼
lttw e²nai aËtäi pr¼ t xenodok©a.
22 poän Siebenkees: p»wn V kat cil©a Wilamowitz:

kaq ì xako©a V 24 taÓta Schneider: toÓto V j¦ai Lycius:
ja V aËtäi Foss: aÉtän V 26 d Jebb: d ì e« V 27 khn
Casaubon: kl©na V 29 aËtäi Schwartz: aÉ- V 31 Âti Lycius: di»ti
V 32 aËtäi Edmonds: aÉ- V xenodok©a Cobet: -c©a V
132
counting from the thousand-drachma to the one-drachma col-

umn, and putting a plausible name to each item, and reaches
as much as ten talents, and says that these are the sums he has
contributed towards loans for friends – and he has not included
the trierarchies and all his other compulsory public services. He
will approach people selling horses of quality and pretend that
he is a customer. He will visit the clothes stalls and look for a
wardrobe amounting to two talents, then vent his annoyance on
his slave for coming without the money. Although the house he
lives in is rented he will tell the innocent listener that it belonged
to his father and he proposes to sell it because it is too small for
the scale of his hospitality.
133
XXIV
UPERHFANO
1 [ ï Eti d ¡ Ëperhjan©a katajr»nh© ti pln aËtoÓ tän
llwn.]
2 ëO d Ëperjano toi»de ti o³o täi peÅdonti p¼
3 de©pnou nteÅxeqai jkein n täi peripate±n. kaª eÔ poia
4 memn¦qai jkein. kaª bad©zwn n ta± ¾do± t dia©ta 5
5 kr©nein [n] to± pitryai. kaª ceirotonoÅmeno x»mnuqai
6 t rc, oÉ jkwn colzein. kaª proelqe±n pr»tero
7 oÉdenª qel¦ai. kaª toÆ pwloÓnt ti £ miqoumnou dein¼
8 keleÓai ¤kein pr¼ aËt¼n m ì ¡mrai. kaª n ta± ¾do±
poreu»meno m lale±n to± ntugcnoui ktw kekujÛ, 10
9 Âtan d aÉtäi d»xhi nw plin. kaª tiän toÆ j©lou
aÉt¼ m undeipne±n ll tän Ëj ì aËt»n tini untxai
10 aÉtän pimele±qai. kaª proapotllein d, pn poreÅhtai,
11 t¼n roÓnta Âti prorcetai. kaª oÎte p ì leij»menon
12 aËt¼n oÎte loÅmenon oÎte q©onta ai n e«elqe±n. mlei 15
d kaª logiz»meno pr» tina täi paidª untxai t yjou
diaqe±nai kaª kejlaion poianti gryai aÉtäi e« l»gon.
13 kaª pitllwn m grjein Âti “Car©zoio n moi” ll ì Âti
“BoÅlomai genqai” kaª “ ìAptalka pr¼ lhy»meno”
kaª “ í Opw llw m tai” kaª “Tn tac©thn”. 20
Tit. Ëperhjan©a kdé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 aËtoÓ Needham:

aÉ- V 5 bad©zwn Schweighäuser: bizein V 6 n del. Coray,
Schneider ceirotonoÅmeno Coray, Schneider: -mnoi V 8
qel¦ai Diggle (qel¦ai Casaubon): qela V miqoumnou Coray:
memiqwmnou V 9 aËt¼n Pasquali: aÉ- V 12 aËt»n Needham: aÉ-
V 14 prorcetai Schneider: pro- V 15 aËt¼n Needham: aÉ- V
loÅmenon Meineke: lou»m- V ai Needham: a V 17 diaqe±nai
Sheppard: diwqe±n V 18 grjein Schneider: gryein V Âti (alterum)
Vc : Â•• V
134
XXIV
T H E A R RO G A N T M A N
[Arrogance is a contempt for everyone other than oneself.]
The Arrogant Man is the sort who tells someone who is in
a hurry that he will meet him after dinner while he is taking
his stroll. He says that he never forgets a good turn that he
has done. When called in to arbitrate he delivers his judgement
while walking down the street. When voted into office he protests
that he cannot accept, pleading lack of time. He will never be
the one to make the first approach. People who wish to sell or
hire something are told to present themselves at his house at
daybreak. As he walks in the street he does not speak to passers-
by but keeps his head down and looks up only when it suits him.
When he gives a dinner for his friends he does not dine with
them but tells one of his employees to look after them. When
he travels he sends someone ahead to say that he is coming. He
refuses vistors while he is putting on oil or bathing or eating. And
you may be sure that when he is reckoning someone’s account
he instructs his slave to do the calculations, work out a total,
and write him out an invoice for that amount. When he sends a
written request it is not his style to say ‘I should be obliged’, but
rather ‘I expressly desire’ and ‘My agent is on the way’ and ‘No
alternative’ and ‘Without delay’.
135
XXV
DEILO
1 [ ìAmlei d ¡ deil©a d»xeien <n> e²nai Ìpeix© ti yuc¦
mjobo.]
2 ëO d deil¼ <toioÓt»> ti o³o plwn t kra jkein
¡miol©a e²nai· kaª klÅdwno genomnou rwtn e ti m
memÅhtai tän ple»ntwn· kaª toÓ kuberntou nakÅptwn 5
ma punqneqai e« meopore± kaª t© aÉtäi doke± t toÓ qeoÓ·
kaª pr¼ t¼n parakaqmenon lgein Âti jobe±tai p¼ nup-
n©ou tin»· kaª kdÆ did»nai täi paidª t¼n citwn©kon· kaª
3 de±qai pr¼ tn g¦n progein aËt»n. kaª trateu»meno
d <toÓ> pezoÓ kbohqoÓnto † t† prokale±n, keleÅwn 10
pr¼ aËt¼n tnta präton periide±n, kaª lgein Þ rgon
4 diagnänai [ti] p»tero© e«in o¬ polmioi. kaª koÅwn krau-
g¦ kaª ¾rän p©ptonta epa pr¼ toÆ parethk»ta
Âti tn pqhn labe±n Ëp¼ t¦ poud¦ pelqeto trcein
pª tn khnn, t¼n pa±da kpmya kaª keleÅa proko- 15
pe±qai poÓ e«in o¬ polmioi pokrÅyai aÉtn Ëp¼ t¼
5 prokejlaion, e²ta diatr©bein polÆn cr»non Þ zhtän. kaª
n t¦i khn¦i ¾rän traumat©an tin projer»menon tän
j©lwn prodramÜn kaª qarre±n keleÅa ËpolabÜn jrein·
kaª toÓton qerapeÅein kaª peripogg©zein kaª parakaqmeno 20
p¼ toÓ lkou t mu©a obe±n kaª pn mllon £ mce-
6 qai to± polem©oi. kaª toÓ alpiktoÓ d t¼ polemik¼n
hmnanto kaqmeno n t¦i khn¦i <e«pe±n> “ *pag ì
k»raka· oÉk ei t¼n nqrwpon Ìpnou lace±n pukn
Tit. deil©a ke é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 <n> c1 3 <toioÓto> c

6 ma Diggle: mn V 9 aËt»n Needham: aÉ- V 10 <toÓ>
Wilamowitz pezoÓ V, ¦ s.l. 11 aËt¼n Needham: aÉ- V 12 ti
del. Diggle p»teroi Schwartz: -on V 13 epa Ilberg: e²pe V, ou s.l.
16 Ëp¼ c2 , Casaubon: pr¼ V 17 zhtän Schneider: -e±n V 18 tin
V1 c : om. V 22 alpiktoÓ Herwerden: -itoÓ V 23 <e«pe±n> Pauw
24 ei Casaubon: -ei V lace±n Abresch, Reiske: labe±n V
136
XXV
T H E C O WA R D
Cowardice would simply seem to be a terrified giving-way of the
mind.]
The Coward, when he is at sea, claims that promontories are
pirate ships. If a swell gets up, he asks if there is a non-initiate on
board. Looking anxiously up at the sky he wants to know from
the helmsman if he is half-way and how the heavens look to him.
He tells the man sitting next to him that he is alarmed because
of some dream, takes off his underclothes and gives them to
his slave, and begs to be put ashore. When he is on military
service and the infantry are going into action, he calls to ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
and tells them to come and stand by him and wait and see before
they commit themselves, claiming that it is difficult to make out
which side are the enemy. Hearing cries and seeing men falling
he says to his neighbours that he was in such a hurry that he
forgot to bring his sword, and he runs to his tent, sends his slave
outside with instructions to see where the enemy are, and hides it
under the pillow, then spends a long time pretending to look for
it. While he is in the tent he sees one of his friends being brought
back wounded, and so he runs up to him and tells him to be
brave and lends a supporting hand. Then he gives him medical
attention and sponges him down and sits beside him and keeps
the flies off the wound – anything rather than fight the enemy.
When the trumpeter sounds the attack he says, as he sits there
in the tent, ‘To hell with you! You’ll stop the man getting any
137
7 hma©nwn”. kaª a¯mato d nplew p¼ toÓ llotr©ou 25

traÅmato ntugcnein to± k t¦ mch panioÓi kaª
8 dihge±qai Þ kinduneÅa “ í Ena wka tän j©lwn”. kaª
e«gein pr¼ t¼n katake©menon keyomnou toÆ dhm»ta,
<toÆ jrtera>, toÆ julta kaª toÅtwn m ì ktwi
dihge±qai Þ aÉt¼ aÉt¼n ta± autoÓ cerªn pª khnn 30
k»mien.
27 <toÆ jrtera> Diggle 30–1 ].. l. g. e. .i n p[ c. ix a]Ét¼n w .[ c.

v khn]n P
138
sleep with this continual trumpeting.’ Spattered with blood from

the other’s wound he meets the troops returning from battle
and announces, with the look of one who has risked his life, ‘I
saved one of our men’. Then he invites his fellow demesmen,
<clansmen> and tribesmen to come in and look at the patient,
and as they enter he explains to each one of them how he carried
him to the tent with his own bare hands.
139
XXVI
OLIGARCIKO
1 [D»xeien d ì n e²nai ¡ ½ligarc©a <proa©re©> ti «cÅo
kaª krdou glicomnh.]
2 ëO d ½ligarcik¼ toioÓt» <ti> o³o toÓ dmou bou-
leuomnou t©na täi rconti proairontai t¦ pomp¦
toÆ unepimelhomnou parelqÜn pojnaqai Þ de± 5
aÉtokrtora toÅtou e²nai, kn lloi probllwntai dka
lgein Âti “ëIkan¼ e³ ti, toÓton d de± ndra e²nai”, kaª
tän ëOmrou pän toÓto n m»non katcein, Âti “OÉk ga-
q¼n polukoiran©h· e³ ko©rano tw”, tän d llwn mhdn
3 p©taqai. mlei d dein¼ to± toioÅtoi tän l»gwn cr- 10
aqai Âti “De± aÉtoÆ ¡m unelq»nta perª toÅtwn bou-
leÅaqai kaª k toÓ Àclou kaª t¦ gor pallag¦nai
kaª paÅaqai rca± plhizonta kaª Ëp¼ toÅtwn oÌtw
Ëbrizomnou £ timwmnou” <kaª> Âti “ ð H toÅtou de± £
4 ¡m o«ke±n tn p»lin”. kaª t¼ mon d t¦ ¡mra xiÜn [kaª] 15
t¼ ¬mtion nabeblhmno kaª mhn kourn kekarmno kaª
kribä pwnucimno obe±n toÆ toioÅtou l»gou tra-
gwidän· “Di toÆ ukojnta oÉk o«kht»n tin n t¦i
p»lei” kaª Þ “ ìEn to± dikathr©oi dein pcomen Ëp¼
Tit. ½ligarc©a kvé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d»xeien d ì n e²nai ¡ ½lig-

arc©a <proa©re©> ti V (suppl. Diggle): ¡ (d) ½l]i. g[arc]©a t[© ti
proa©re]. .i . P? icuo k. [ai P: «curä V 2 glic- c: clic-
V: ]lic- P 3 ½ligarcik¼ Casaubon: ½l©garco V: ]o P <ti> c2 ,
Ast 3–9 toioÓto «dia[ c.v ]m. . n lgwn oÉk [gaq¼n po]lukoiran©h· e³[
ko©ra]n. o. tw, [e³] bail[eÅ]. kaª toÓ dmou ce[iroto]n. o. u. [n]t. o. pol-
loÆ [ c.x ]wn rke[i(n) P 3 bouleuomnou Casaubon: boulom- V 4
proairontai Schneider: pro- V 5 pojnaqai Reiske: pojna
cei V 7 Âti hoc loco Sitzler: ante de± V 10 mlei . . . craqai bis scr.
V l»gwn Casaubon: ½l©gwn utrobique V 11 incertum toÅt(wn) an
toÅt(ou) V 13 oÌtw Navarre: aÉtoÆ V 14 <kaª> Hanow de±
V1 s , om. V 15 ¡m Vc : Ëm- V kaª del. Darvaris 17 tragwidän
Herwerden: tn toÓ Ýd©w V 18 (o«kt)wr Vs
140
XXVI
T H E O L I G A RC H I C M A N
[Oligarchy would seem to be a <policy> covetous of power and
profit.]
The Oligarchic Man is the kind who steps forward, when the
people are considering whom they will appoint in addition to
help the archon with the procession, and gives as his opinion that
those appointed should have plenary powers, and says, if others
propose ten, ‘One is enough; but he must be a real man.’ The
only verse of Homer which he knows is ‘Multiple rule is not good:
so let there be one single ruler’, and he is completely ignorant of
the rest. He is quite liable to say things like ‘We must meet and
discuss this on our own and be rid of the mob and the market-
place, and we must stop courting office, and so remove their
licence to dispense affronts or favours’ and ‘It’s either them or us:
we can’t both live in this city.’ He goes out at midday and struts
about dressed in his cloak, with his hair trimmed and his nails
carefully pared, declaiming melodramatically: ‘The sycophants
make life in the city unbearable’ and ‘Judicial corruption is a
141
tän dekazomnwn” kaª Þ “Qaumzw tän pr¼ t koin 20

proi»ntwn t© boÅlontai” kaª Þ “ ìAcrit»n ti <t¼
pl¦qo kaª mn¦mon> toÓ nmonto kaª did»nto” kaª Þ
a«cÅnetai n t¦i kklh©ai Âtan parakaq¦ta© ti aËtäi
5 lept¼ kaª aÉcmän. kaª e«pe±n “P»te pau»meqa Ëp¼ tän
leitourgiän kaª tän trihrarciän pollÅmenoi;” kaª Þ 25
“Miht¼n t¼ tän dhmagwgän gno”, t¼n Qha präton
ja tän kakän t¦i p»lei gegonnai ation· toÓton gr k
dÛdeka p»lewn e« m©an † katagag»nta luqe©a baile©a† ·
kaª d©kaia aÉt¼n paqe±n· präton gr aÉt¼n polqai
Ëp ì aÉtän. 30
6 [kaª toiaÓta tera pr¼ toÆ xnou kaª tän politän
toÆ ¾motr»pou kaª taÉt proairoumnou.]
20 dekazomnwn Meier: dik- V qaumzw Coray, Schneider: -wn V

21 –2 t¼ pl¦qo suppl. Schneider, kaª mn¦mon Diggle 23 aËtäi
Edmonds: aÉ- V 28 bailé V, sc. bail(e©a) ut uid. 31 –2 del. Bloch
142
dire affliction’ and ‘I cannot imagine why people go into politics’

and ‘You must not expect thanks from the common people: they
soon forget where the handouts come from’, and how ashamed
he is when he finds himself sitting in the Assembly next to some
scrawny fellow who has not used any oil. And he says ‘Com-
pulsory public services and trierarchies will be the death of us –
will we never be rid of them?’ and ‘Demagogues are a detestable
breed’, claiming that Theseus must bear responsibility for the
damage they have done the city – he amalgamated the twelve
towns into one ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ; and he got what he deserved, because
he was their first victim.
[And more to the same effect, addressed to foreigners and to
citizens of similar disposition and political persuasion.]
143
XXVII
OYIMAQH
1 [ ëH d ½yimaq©a jilopon©a d»xeien n e²nai Ëpr tn ¡lik©an.]
2 ëO d ½yimaq toioÓt» ti o³o çei manqnein xkon-
ta th gegonÜ kaª taÅta lgwn par p»ton pilanqne-
3 qai. kaª par toÓ ËoÓ manqnein t¼ “ ìEpª d»ru” kaª “ ìEp ì
4 p©da” kaª “ ìEp ì oÉrn”. kaª e« ¡räia umblleqai to± 5
5 meirak©oi lampda trcwn. mlei d kn pou klhq¦i e«
ëHrkleion, ç©ya t¼ ¬mtion t¼n boÓn areqai ¯na trach-
6/7 l©hi. kaª proanatr©beqai e«iÜn e« t pala©tra. kaª
n to± qaÅmai tr©a £ tttara plhrÛmata Ëpomnein t
8 imata kmanqnwn. kaª teloÅmeno täi abaz©wi peÓai 10
9 Âpw kalliteÅhi par täi ¬ere±. kaª rän ta©ra kaª
kri¼ probllwn ta± qÅ<rai> plhg e«lhjÜ Ëp ì
10 nteratoÓ dikzeqai. kaª e« gr¼n j ì ¯ppou llotr©ou
½coÅmeno ma meletn ¬ppzeqai kaª peÜn tn kejaln
11 katag¦nai. kaª n dekadita± ungein toÆ meq ì aËtoÓ 15
†
12 unaÅxonta† . kaª makr¼n ndrinta pa©zein pr¼ t¼n
13 autoÓ k»louqon. kaª diatoxeÅeqai kaª diakont©zeqai
täi tän paid©wn paidagwgäi kaª ma <keleÅein aÉt>
14 manqnein par ì aËtoÓ Þ n kaª ke©nou m pitamnou. kaª
pala©wn d ì n täi balane©wi pukn dran trjein Âpw 20
Tit. ½yimaq©a kzé 1 del. Darvaris 2 o³o c: o³on V 2–3 xkonta

th c: xhkontath V 3 taÅta c1 : taÓta V 4 ËoÓ Diggle: u¬oÓ
V t¼ ìEpª Schneider: pª t¼ V 4–5 pª p©da V 5 ¡räia
Siebenkees: ¤rwa V 6 trcwn Schneider: -ein V klhq¦ Vc : -qe± V
7 areqai Meier: a¬re±qai V 8 e«iÜn Ast: e«pÜn V 11 ta©ra cen-
sor Ienensis editionis Goezianae: ¬er V? , - Vc? 12 kri¼ Herwerden:
-oÆ V qÅ<rai> censor Ienensis: qu V (tum spat. c. iv litt. uac. et
lacunae signum) 14 ½coÅmeno c: katoc- V meletn Vc : mail- V?
15 katag¦nai Palmerius: kateagnai V n dekadita± Wilhelm: ndeka
lita± V meq ì aËtoÓ Jebb: met ì aÉ- V 16 pa©zein c: pz- V 18
keleÅein suppl. Dobree (post aËtoÓ iam Reiske), aÉt Diggle 19 aËtoÓ
Foss: aÉ- V
144
XXVII
T H E L AT E L E A R N E R
[Late Learning would seem to be enthusiasm for exercises
beyond one’s years.]
The Late Learner is the kind of man who at the age of sixty
memorises passages for recitation and while performing at a
party forgets the words. He gets his son to teach him ‘Right
turn’, ‘Left turn’, and ‘About turn’. He joins the young men’s
torch-race team for the hero-festivals. If he is invited to a shrine
of Heracles you can be sure that he will throw off his cloak and
try lifting the bull to get it in a neck-lock. When he goes to the
wrestling-schools he fights with no holds barred. He sits through
three or four performances of a show, to get the songs by heart.
At his initiation into the cult of Sabazios he is anxious that the
priest should judge him the handsomest of the initiands. He falls
for a courtesan and rams her door, and when her other lover
beats him up he goes to court. While riding into the country
on a borrowed horse he practises fancy horsemanship, falls off,
and cracks his skull. At the ‘Tenth Day Club’ he ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . He
plays his attendant at ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . He competes with his children’s
tutor at archery and javelin-throwing and tells them to take a
lesson from him, because the tutor hasn’t the know-how. When
he wrestles at the baths he does frequent buttock-twists, so that
145
15 pepaideÓqai dok¦i. kaª Âtan åi<n ggÆ> guna±k<e> 21

meletn ½rce±qai aÉt¼ aËtäi teret©zwn.
16 [oÌtw ¾ t¦ didakal©a reqim¼ manikoÆ kaª
xethk»ta nqrÛpou to± ¢qei poie±.]
21 åi<n ggÆ> Meister: åi tum spat. c. iii litt. uac. V guna±k<e>
Siebenkees: gunaik tum spat. c. ii litt. uac. V 22 aËtäi Siebenkees: aÉ-
V 23–4 hoc loco Boissonade: post cap. XXVIII V eadem hoc loco
del. Hanow (post XXVIII iam Schneider)
146
he may pass for an expert. When there are women nearby, he

practises dance-steps, humming his own accompaniment.
[Thus does the stimulus for instruction make people mad and
deranged in personality.]
147
XXVIII
KAKOLOGO
1 [ ï Eti d ¡ kakolog©a gwg yuc¦ e« t¼ ce±ron n l»goi.]
2 ¾ d kakol»go toi»de ti o³o rwthqeª “ ëO de±na t©
t©n;” † oÉkoÓnde† kaqper o¬ genealogoÓnte “Präton p¼
toÓ gnou aÉtoÓ rxomai. toÅtou ¾ mn patr x rc¦
w©a kale±to, gneto d n to± tratiÛtai w©tra- 5
to, peid d e« toÆ dhm»ta negrjh <w©dhmo>. ¡
mntoi mthr eÉgen Qritt ti· kale±tai goÓn † ¡ yuc
krinok»raka† · t d toiaÅta jaªn n t¦i patr©di eÉgene±
e²nai. aÉt¼ d oÕto Þ k toioÅtwn gegonÜ kak¼ kaª
3 tigmat©a.” kaª † kakän† d pr» tina e«pe±n “ ìEgÜ dpou 10
†
t toiaÓta o²da Ëpr æn Æ plan pr¼ m kaª toÅtoi
diexiÛn† . aÕtai a¬ guna±ke k t¦ ¾doÓ toÆ pari»nta
unarpzoui” kaª “O«k©a ti aÌth t klh rku±a· oÉ gr
oÔn l¦r» ti t¼ leg»menon ll ì ãper a¬ kÅne n ta± ¾do±
uncontai” kaª “T¼ Âlon ndrok»balo© tine” kaª “AÉtaª 15
4 t¦i qÅrai t¦i aÉle©wi ËpakoÅoui”. mlei d kaª kakä
leg»ntwn trwn unepilabqai epa “ ìEgÜ d toÓton t¼n
nqrwpon plon pntwn mem©hka· kaª gr e«decq ti p¼
toÓ proÛpou t©n· t¦i d ponhr©ai oÉdn Âmoion· hme±on
d· t¦i gr aËtoÓ gunaikª tlanton e«enegkamnhi pro±ka 20
Tit. kakolog©a khé 1 del. Bloch gwg post Casaubon (gwg

t¦) Edmonds: gÜn t¦ V 6 <w©dhmo> Meier 7 qrtta V
yuc Vc : cu- V 9 kak¼ tamquam e V Siebenkees: -ä V 10
tigmat©a Diggle: matig©a V 11 Æ Vc : •Æ V 14 oÔn Schneider:
o³on V kÅne nescioquis ap. Ast: guna±ke V ta± Vc : t•• V 15
ndrok»baloi Foss: ndr»laloi V 16 t¦i qÅrai t¦i aÉle©wi Diggle: tn
qÅran tn aÎleion V mlei Goez: mlei V 17 leg»ntwn V1 m : om. V
unepilabqai Diggle: -lambneqai V epa tamquam e V Cobet: e²pen
(uel e²en) V? , epou Vc 19 t¦i . . . ponhr©ai Schwartz: ¡ . . . ponhr©a V
Âmoion c: ¾mo±a V, -o©a Vc 20 aËtoÓ Foss (au- c): aÉ- V tlanton
Dübner: tlanta V e«engkamen £ V
148
XXVIII
THE SLANDERER
[Slander is a bent of mind towards making the worst of things
in speech.]
The Slanderer is the kind of man who when asked ‘Who is
so-and-so?’ ∗ ∗ ∗ in the style of the genealogists ‘I shall begin
with his antecedents. His father was originally called Sosias; but
in the army he became Sosistratos, and when he was enrolled in
a deme, Sosidemos. His mother, however, is a Thracian of good
family. At all events she is called ∗ ∗ ∗ , and in their own country
women like her are reputed to come from a good family. He
himself, with parents like these, is naturally a criminal with
a tattoo.’ And he says to ∗ ∗ ∗ ‘I certainly ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . These
women grab passers-by off the street’ and ‘This is a house with
its legs in the air. In fact, what’s being said isn’t idle talk: they
couple in the streets like dogs’ and ‘The only word for them is
she-devils’ and ‘They answer their own front doors’. You can
be sure that when he hears others talking slanderously he will
join in with ‘There’s nobody I detest more than that man. He’s
got a repulsive face. And his depravity has no equal. I tell you: his
149
x oÕ paid©on aÉtäi genni tre± calkoÓ <t¦ ¡mra> e«

Àyon d©dwi kaª [täi] yucräi loÓqai nagkzei [t¦i] toÓ
5 Poideäno [¡mrai]”. kaª ugkaqhmnoi dein¼ perª toÓ
natnto e«pe±n kaª rcn ge e«lhjÜ m pocqai mhd
6 toÆ o«ke©ou aÉtoÓ loidor¦ai. kaª ple±ta perª tän j©lwn 25
kaª o«ke©wn kak e«pe±n kaª perª tän teteleuthk»twn, <t¼>
kakä lgein pokalän parrh©an kaª dhmokrat©an kaª
leuqer©an kaª tän n täi b©wi ¤dita toÓto poiän.
21 oÕ Immisch: ¨ V genn V, ggone V2m <t¦ ¡mra> Diggle

22 täi del. Herwerden loÓqai Meineke: loÅeqai V 22–3 t¦i
(om. c) et ¡mrai del. Ast 23 Poideäno post Casaubon (Poeid-)
Edmonds: Poeidäno V ugkaqhmnoi Schwartz: -meno V 24
e«lhjÜ Schneider: -j»to V 25 loidor¦ai Vc : -e±ai V 26 <t¼>
Hanow 28 epilogum qui post poiän traditur quaere post cap. XXVII
150
wife brought him a dowry of a talent, but since she presented him
with a child he has given her only threepence a day for food and
he makes her wash in cold water during the month of Posideon.’
And he is liable to talk to people in the nearby seats about the
man who has got up to speak, and once he has started he will not
stop before he has abused his relatives too. He will particularly
speak ill of his own friends and relatives and of the dead, claiming
that slander is only another word for free speech and democracy
and liberty, and he is never happier than when he is engaged
in it.
151
XXIX
FILOPONHRO
1 [ ï Eti d ¡ jiloponhr©a piqum©a kak©a.]
2 ¾ d jilop»nhro [ti] toi»de ti o³o ntugcnein to±
¡tthmnoi kaª dhmo©ou gäna Ýjlhk»i kaª Ëpolamb-
nein, n toÅtoi cr¦tai, mpeir»tero geneqai kaª
3 joberÛtero. kaª pª to± crhto± e«pe±n Þ † g©netai kaª 5
jhªn† Þ oÉde© ti crht¼ kaª ¾mo©ou pnta e²nai, kaª
4 pikäyai d “ ë W crht» ti”. kaª t¼n ponhr¼n d e«pe±n
leÅqeron, n boÅlhta© ti e« p< >, kaª t mn
lla ¾mologe±n lhq¦ Ëpr aÉtoÓ lgeqai Ëp¼ tän nqrÛ-
pwn, nia d † gnoe±n† j¦ai· <e²nai> gr aÉt¼n eÉju kaª 10
jiltairon kaª pidxion· kaª diate©neqai d Ëpr aÉtoÓ Þ
5 oÉk ntetÅchken nqrÛpwi ¬kanwtrwi. kaª eÎnou d e²nai
aÉtäi n kklh©ai lgonti £ pª dikathr©ou krinomnwi. kaª
pr¼ <toÆ> kaqhmnou d e«pe±n dein¼ Þ “OÉ de± t¼n
ndra ll t¼ prgma kr©neqai”. kaª j¦ai aÉt¼n kÅna 15
e²nai toÓ dmou (Ëlakte±n gr aÉt¼n toÆ dikoÓnta) kaª
e«pe±n Þ “OÉc xomen toÆ Ëpr tän koinän unacqeqho-
6 mnou, n toÆ toioÅtou proÛmeqa”. dein¼ d kaª pro-
tat¦ai jaÅlwn kaª unedreÓai n dikathr©oi pª ponhro±
prgmai kaª kr©in kr©nwn kdceqai t Ëp¼ tän ntid©kwn 20
leg»mena pª t¼ ce±ron.
7 [kaª t¼ Âlon ¡ jiloponhr©a delj ti t¦ ponhr©a,
kaª lhq ti t¼ t¦ paroim©a t¼ Âmoion pr¼ t¼ Âmoion
poreÅeqai.]
Tit. jilopon©a kqé (item 1, 22, -pono 2) 1 del. Darvaris 2 ti del.
Herwerden 3 Ýjlhk»i Coray, Schneider: Ýjel- V 7 pikäyai
Coray: -k¦yai V 8 spat. c. vi litt. V 10 <e²nai> Foss eÉju
Darvaris: -¦ V 13 aÉtäi Meier: täi V dikathr©ou Darvaris:
-©w V 14 pr¼ <toÆ> kaqhmnou Meier: prokaqmeno V 16
Ëlakte±n Contos: julttein V 17 xomen Vc : •omai Vuv (uix c-) 20
prgmai V1 c : -in V 22–4 del. Schweighäuser 22 ¡ del. V1 c
152
XXIX
THE FRIEND OF VILLAINS
[Being Friendly with Villains is a desire for evil.]
The Friend of Villains is the sort of man who falls in with
people who have been defeated in the law courts and have lost
public cases, and supposes that if he associates with them he will
learn the tricks of the trade and become a man who is not to
be trifled with. He says of honest men that ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ and that
there is no such thing as an honest man, because people are all
the same, and he will say sarcastically ‘What an honest man he
is.’ He describes the villain as ‘a man of independent charac-
ter’, if someone wishes < >, and he agrees that what is
said about him by people is partly true, but claims that some
things ∗ ∗ ∗ , for in fact (so he claims) he is smart, loyal, and
shrewd; and he pulls out all the stops on his behalf, insisting that
he has never met an abler man. He supports him when he is
speaking in the Assembly or when he is on trial in court. He is
apt to say to the jury ‘You must judge the case, not the man.’
And he describes him as the people’s guard-dog (because he
barks at offenders) and claims ‘We shall have nobody willing to
trouble their heads on our behalf if we throw away people like
this.’ He is also apt to patronise riff-raff and sit with them on
the jury to see that villainy is done, and his judgement is warped
by a propensity to put the worst possible construction on the
arguments advanced by the opposing parties.
[In sum, being friendly with villains is akin to villainy. They
are, as the proverb puts it, birds of a feather.]
153
XXX
AICROKERDH
1 [ ëH d a«crokrdei tin piqum©a krdou a«croÓ.]
2 ¾ d a«crokerd toioÓt» <ti> o³o tiän rtou
3 ¬kanoÆ m paraqe±nai. kaª dane©aqai par xnou par ì
4 aËtäi katalÅonto. kaª dianmwn mer©da j¦ai d©kaion
e²nai dimoir©an täi dianmonti d©doqai kaª eÉqÆ aËtäi 5
5 ne±mai. kaª o«nopwlän kekramnon t¼n o²non täi j©lwi po-
6 d»qai. kaª pª qan thnikaÓta poreÅeqai gwn toÆ ËoÆ
7 ¡n©k ì n pro±ka e«jräin o¬ qeatränai. kaª podhmän
dhmo©ai t¼ mn k t¦ p»lew j»dion okoi katalipe±n,
par d tän umprebeu»ntwn dane©aqai· kaª täi ko- 10
loÅqwi me±zon jort©on piqe±nai £ dÅnatai jrein kaª lci-
ta pitdeia tän llwn parcein· kaª <tän> xen©wn t¼
8 mro t¼ aËtoÓ paita pod»qai. kaª leij»meno n
täi balane©wi [kaª] epa täi paidar©wi “apr»n ge t¼
9 laion pr©w” täi llotr©wi le©jeqai. kaª tän Ëp¼ tän 15
o«ketän eËrikomnwn calkän n ta± ¾do± dein¼ pait-
10 ¦ai t¼ mro, koin¼n e²nai ja t¼n ëErm¦n. kaª qo«mtion
kdoÓnai plÓnai kaª crhmeno par gnwr©mou jelkÅai
Tit. a«crokerde©a lé 1 del. Darvaris ti V piqum©a Bloch:

periou©a V 2 ¾ d a«- toioÓt» <ti> Hanow: ti d toioÓto ¾
a«- V tiän Coray, Schneider: q©wn V 4 aËtäi Edmonds: aÉ- V
5 dimoir©an Petersen: dimo©rwi V aËtäi Amadutius: aÉ- V 6–34 kaª
. . . lbwi post cap. XI habent AB 6 podid»qai A (∼A1 c ) 7
thnikaÓta V: ¡n©k ì n dh(i) AB gwn V, coni. Gale: piÜn AB ËoÆ
Diggle: u¬oÆ V: u¬e± AB 8 ¡n©k ì n Hanow: ¡n©ka ABV e«jräin
Diggle: jiin AB: jaªn V o¬ qeatränai AB: pª qetrwn V 10
umprebeu»ntwn V: -beutän AB dane©aqai V: -zeqai AB 11
piqe±nai hoc loco V: post koloÅqwi AB 12 tän llwn Coray, Schnei-
der: llwn V: tän ¬kanän AB parcein V: om. AB 12 <tän> d
12–13 xen©wn t¼ mro AB (t¼ mro bis B): xnon d mro V 13 aËtoÓ
Stephanus: aÉ- ABV 14 kaª del. Lycius epa Cobet: e«pÜn AB: eper
V täi paidar©wi hoc loco Auberius: tä(i) p- ante täi ll- AB, paidar©w
uel paidrion (paidré ) ante täi ll- V 15 pr©w AB: om. V 15–16
Ëp¼ tän o«k- hoc loco Diggle: post calkän V: post ¾do± AB 16 o«ketän
AB: o«ke©wn V 17–19 kaª . . . paithq¦i V: om. AB 17 qo«mtion
Meineke: ¬mtion V
154
XXX
T H E S H A B B Y P RO F I T E E R
[Shabby Profiteering is desire for shabby profit.]
The Shabby Profiteer is the kind who does not provide
enough bread when he entertains. He borrows money from a
visitor who is staying with him. When he is serving out helpings
he says that it is right and proper that the server should be given
a double helping and so he proceeds to give himself one. When
he has wine for sale he sells it to a friend watered down. He
takes his sons to the theatre only when there is free admission.
When he goes abroad on public service he leaves his official
travel allowance at home and borrows from the other delegates,
loads his attendant with more baggage than he can carry and
provides him with shorter rations than anyone else, and asks for
his share of the presents and then sells them. When he is oiling
himself in the baths he says to his slave ‘The oil you bought
is rancid’ and he uses someone else’s. If his slaves find a few
coppers in the street he is liable to demand a portion of them,
saying ‘Fair shares for all’. He takes his cloak to the cleaner’s
and borrows one from an acquaintance and puts off returning
155
11 ple©ou ¡mra w n paithq¦i. [kaª t toiaÓta.] <kaª>

Feidwne©wi mtrwi t¼n pÅndaka e«kekroumnwi metre±n aÉt¼ 20
12 to± ndon t pitdeia j»dra poyän. <kaª> † Ëpopr©a-
qai j©lou dokoÓnto pr¼ tr»pou pwle±qai pilabÜn
13 pod»qai† . mlei d kaª crw podidoÆ trikonta mnän
14 latton tttari dracma± podoÓnai. kaª tän Ëän d m
poreuomnwn e« t¼ didakale±on t¼n m¦na Âlon di tin ì 25
rrwt©an jaire±n toÓ miqoÓ kat l»gon, kaª t¼n ìAnqe-
thriäna m¦na m pmpein aÉtoÆ e« t maqmata di t¼
15 qa e²nai poll, ¯na m t¼n miq¼n kt©nhi. kaª par paid¼
komiz»meno pojorn toÓ calkoÓ tn pikatallagn pro-
apaite±n· kaª logim¼n d lambnwn par toÓ ceir©zonto 30
16 < >. kaª jrtera tiän a«te±n to± autoÓ paiªn
k toÓ koinoÓ Àyon, t d kataleip»mena p¼ t¦ trapzh
çajan©dwn ¡m©ea pogrjeqai, ¯n ì o¬ diakonoÓnte pa±de
17 m lbwi. <kaª> unapodhmän d met gnwr©mwn craqai
to± ke©nwn pai©, t¼n d autoÓ xw miqäai kaª m naj- 35
18 rein e« t¼ koin¼n t¼n miq»n. mlei d kaª unag»ntwn par ì
aÉtäi Ëpoqe±na© <ti> tän par ì autoÓ didomnwn xÅlwn
kaª jakän kaª Àxou kaª län kaª la©ou toÓ e« t¼n lÅcnon.
19 kaª gamoÓnt» tino tän j©lwn £ kdidomnou qugatra pr¼
20 cr»nou tin¼ podhm¦ai ¯na <m> pmyhi projorn. kaª 40
par tän gnwr©mwn toiaÓta k©craqai mt ì n paitai
mt ì n podid»ntwn tacw n ti kom©aito.
19 kaª t (V: t d d AB) toiaÓta del. Schneider <kaª> Ast
20 Feidwne©wi b, Cobet: -dwn©w(i) AB: -domnw V t¼n AB:
om. V pÅndaka e«kekroumnwi Casaubon: p- kkekroumnw(i) AB:
p(. . . .)dak(. . .)kekrou(. .)menw V (cum spatiis uac.) 21 t pitdeia
j»dra poyän AB: j»dra d Ëpopän t p- V <kaª> Bloch 22
dokoÓnto . . . pwle±qai V: om. AB pilabÜn pod»qai AB: om.
V 23 mlei d kaª cr- AB: kaª cr- d V crw Cobet: -o AB: -h
V 24 tttari V: ttrai AB dragmän B (∼B1 c ) podoÓnai V:
-did»nai AB 24–30 kaª . . . ceir©zonto V: om. AB 24 Ëän Diggle:
u¬än V 25 tin ì Unger: tn V 30 ceir©zonto Vc : c•r- V 31 lac.
indic. Schneider kaª jr- tiän a«te±n AB: jr- tum spat. c. vi litt. uac. V
jrtera Herwerden: -tora ABV autoÓ V: aÉ- AB 32 kata-
lip»mena B 33 çajan©dwn ¡m©ea V: ¡m©h tän çaj- AB ¯n ì AB: ¯na
V 34 lboien A <kaª> Foss 37 aÉtäi Coray: au- V <ti>
Diggle autoÓ Vc : -tä V 39 £ Coray, Schneider: kaª V 40
<m> Amadutius pmyhi Ussing: prop- V 41 paitai Coray,
Schneider: -t¦ai V
156
it for several days until it is demanded back. [And the like.]

He measures out the rations for the household in person, using
a measuring jar set to the old Pheidonian standard, that has
had its bottom dinted inwards, and rigorously levels off the top.
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . And you can be sure that when he
repays a debt of thirty minae he pays it back four drachmas
short. When his sons do not attend school for the full month
because of illness he deducts a proportion of the fees, and he
does not send them for lessons during Anthesterion, to avoid
the expense, because there are so many shows. When he collects
his share of a slave’s earnings he charges him for the cost of
exchanging the copper coin; and when he gets an account from
< >. When he entertains members
of his phratry he asks for food for his slaves from the communal
meal, but he has an inventory made of the radish-halves left
over from the table, so that the slaves waiting at the table won’t
get them. When he is abroad with acquaintances he uses their
slaves and lets his own slave out for hire and doesn’t put the
proceeds towards the joint account. And, needless to say, when
the dining club meets at his house he charges for the firewood,
beans, vinegar, salt and lamp-oil that he is providing. When a
friend is getting married or marrying off a daughter he leaves
town some time before, so that he won’t have to send a present.
And he borrows from acquaintances the kinds of thing which
nobody would demand back or be in a hurry to take back if
offered.
157
COMMENTARY
C O M M E N TA RY
P R E FA C E
Introductory note
That the Preface is spurious was first argued by C. G. Sonntag, Dissertatio
in Prooemium Characterum Theophrasti (Leipzig 1787). But it had already been
stigmatised by Furlanus in 1605 (‘Praefatio indigna . . . tanto philosopho’). The
writer is aged 99; Theophrastus died at 85.1 The writer has sons; Theophrastus
died childless.2 He says that he has sketched good characters as well as bad.3
He speaks crassly about the Greek climate and Greek education. His style
is repetitive and banal. He is probably of late imperial or early Byzantine
date, and he may be the pedant who composed the moralising epilogues.
The longest of the epilogues (VIII) shares several linguistic features with the
Preface: a predilection for the perfect tense (epil. VIII n.); the noun pitdeuma;
successive clauses linked by gr; and teqaÅmaka t© pote (VIII) reminiscent of
qaÅmaa . . . qaumzwn· t© gr dpote.4 The educative purpose which he
finds in the work reminds us of Stobaeus, who compiled his anthology pª täi
çuqm©ai kaª beltiäai täi paidª tn jÅin (1.3 Wachsmuth).5
The heading proo©mion is found only in Laur. 87.14 (11 Wilson), a descen-
dant of A (Stefanis (1994a) 83 n. 33). More commonly proqewr©a (e); also
Qe»jrato Polukle± and the like (c).
1 pollki . . . qaÅmaa: a formulaic expression, reflecting the opening

words of X. Mem. 1, Isoc. 4 (pollki qaÅmaa), Alcid. Od. (pollki ¢dh
nequmqhn kaª qaÅmaa); cf. Lys. 12.41, X. Mem. 3.13.3, PCG adesp. 1017.47,
Plb. 18.13.1, Powell on Cic. Sen. 4 saepenumero admirari soleo.
1 See the Introduction, pp. 1 –3, 16. The ‘Aged Sage’ is a recurrent literary fiction (M. L.
West, HSCPh 73 (1969) 121 –2).
2 As may be inferred from his will (D.L. 5.51 –7). In any case the sons of a man of 99
would be too old for moral instruction. If by u¬e± the writer means ‘young people’ or
‘school-children’ (Steinmetz), he has expressed himself carelessly.
3 See the Introduction, p. 18.
4 Pasquali (1918) 147–50, (1919) 1 –2 = (1986) 62–9, has some useful comments on style
and language.
5 M. Untersteiner, ‘Studi sulla sofistica. Il proemio dei “Caratteri” di Teofrasto e un
probabile frammento di Ippia’, RFIC 26 (1948) 1 –25 = Scritti Minori (Brescia 1971) 465–
88, has the bizarre notion that §§1 –4 (lgw) are from a work Perª pa©dwn gwg¦ by
the sophist Hippias, addressed not to PolÅklei but to Per©klei (a corruption unique
to Vat. Pal. gr. 149 (57 Wilson) in §3; for its history in printed editions see Torraca
(1994a) 91 –2).
161
COMMENTARY
pita tn dinoian: elsewhere with dat. (D.S. 12.1.1) or prep. (kat +
acc., Isoc. 9.69; per© + gen., Arist. Metaph. 987 b 3–4; p© + acc., Polystr. De
contemptu 30. 27–8 (p. 128 Indelli), D.H. 1.2.1, J. BJ 5.462); with no adjunct, as
here, fr. 68 Wimmer (122A Fortenbaugh) ap. Alex.Aphr. (but this need not be
a verbatim quotation). Here, without adjunct, the expression sits awkwardly.
The writer may have had in mind the opening of X. Lac. ll ì gÜ nnoa . . .
qaÅmaa ktl.
oÉd: ‘not . . . either’ (Denniston 194–5).
t© gr dpote ktl.: this would come more naturally as an indirect question
(qaumzein t© dpote D. 19.80, 24.6, 41.14, 51.11, Prooem. 14.1, Aeschin. 1.17,
D.H. 5.50.4). But gr must then either be omitted (Casaubon, also M) or
changed to ra (Madvig). To retain gr and punctuate without a question
mark is perverse.
t¦ ë Elldo Ëp¼ t¼n aÉt¼n ra keimnh: that national character is
conditioned by climate was a traditional doctrine: e.g. Hp. Aër. 12–23 (2.52–86
Littré), Hdt. 2.35.2, Pl. Lg. 747d-e, Epin. 987d, Arist. Pol. 1327 b 20–36, Plb.
4.20–1, Str. 2.3.7 (Posidon. fr. 49.310ff. Edelstein-Kidd), Liv. 38.17.10, Tac.
Germ. 29, Gal. 4.798–808 Kühn; K. Trüdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-
römischen Ethnographie (Basel 1918) 51 –6, E. Kienzle, Der Lobpreis von Städten und
Ländern in der älteren griechischen Dichtung (Kallmünz 1936) 14–18, J. O. Thomson,
History of Ancient Geography (Cambridge 1948) 106–9, F. W. Walbank, C&M 9
(1948) 178–81, id. HSCPh 76 (1972) 156–7 = Selected Papers (Cambridge 1985)
66–7, E. Norden, Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus Germania (Stuttgart 4 1959)
59–66, A. Dihle, ‘Zur Hellenistischen Ethnographie’, in Grecs et Barbares (Entre-
tiens Hardt 8, 1962) 205–32, Pease on Cic. Diu. 1.79 and Nat.Deor. 2.17; cf. Oliver
Goldsmith, ‘The Effect which Climates have upon Men, and other Animals’
(1760), in A. Friedman (ed.), Collected Works 3 (Oxford 1966) 112–14. Our writer
has dimly remembered this doctrine, but is unaware that within Greece itself
there was no uniformity of climate. Athens claimed a climate surpassing all
others, and Athenians were cleverer than Boeotians because they breathed a
purer air: E. Med. 827–30 jerb»menoi kleinottan oj©an, a«eª di lamprot-
tou ba©nonte brä a«qro, Pl. Ti. 24c taÅthn oÔn d t»te Åmpaan tn
diak»mhin kaª Åntaxin ¡ qe¼ protrou Ëm diakomaa katÛikien
klexamnh t¼n t»pon n æi gegnhqe, tn eÉkra©an tän Þrän n aÉtäi
katidoÓa, Âti jronimwttou ndra ooi, PCG adesp. 155.5, 1001.14 (Men.
fab. inc. 2.14 Arnott), Cic. Fat. 7 Athenis tenue caelum, ex quo etiam acutiores putantur
Attici, crassum Thebis, itaque pingues Thebani et ualentes, Hor. Ep. 2.1.244 Boeotum
in crasso iurares aere natum (cf. Juv. 10.50 ueruecum in patria crassoque sub aere nasci);
M. Goebel, Ethnica, pars prima: De Graecarum Ciuitatum Proprietatibus Prouerbio
notatis (Breslau 1915) 57–8, 96. That the author lived abroad (Steinmetz) is an
unsafe inference, and would not rescue his credit. <ph> t¦ ëElldo
162
PREFACE
(Casaubon), giving a neat balance with pntwn tän ëEllnwn, would be an

attractive proposal in a better writer.
pntwn tän ë Ellnwn ¾mo©w paideuomnwn: this is equally far from real-
ity, whether through ignorance or ineptitude.
txin tän tr»pwn: cf. Gorg. Hel. 14, Pl. R. 618b txi (t¦) yuc¦; Ph. De
Abr. 47 (4.11 Cohn-Wendland) ete ndrän ete yuc¦ tr»pwn narm»nio ¡
txi.
2 gr: an illogical connective.

å PolÅklei: a name common both in Attica and elsewhere (LGPN 1.378,
2.372–3, 3a.369).
kaª bebiwkÜ th nenkonta nna: Theophrastus lived to 85 (D.L. 5.40).
Jerome, Ep. 52.3.5, who says that he lived to 107, has muddled him with Gorgias,
from a careless recollection of Cic. Sen. 13.6 It is idle to write bdomkonta nna
(Casaubon, Proleg.) or to emend D.L. (Casaubon, commentary). The clause is
oddly coordinated with ka©; but te or te ka© (Casaubon) are implausible.
ÞmilhkÜ polla± te kaª pantodapa± jÅei: borrowed from Pl. R. 408d
pantodapa± jÅein Þmilhk»te. The pairing poll- kaª pantodap- is very
common (e.g. HP 7.9.2, Hp. Aër. 9.1 (2.36 Littré), Hdt. 9.84.1, Isoc. 9.8, Pl.
Smp. 193e, X. An. 6.4.5, D. 10.54, Aeschin. 1.127, Arist. Diu.Somn. 463 b 18,
Plb. 1.53.13), but te ka© (an affectation of this writer; def. VI n.) is a very
uncommon copula with this expression (X. HG 2.4.25, Cyr. 4.2.28, Aristox.
Harm. 38 (p. 129.21 Macran), though ka© alone 34 (p. 125.22)).
parateqeamno: ‘inspect side by side’, as Pl. Ep. 313c (the only other
instance cited by LSJ), like the commoner paraqewre±n; differently Ph. Leg.
269 (6.205 Cohn-Wendland) toÆ n kÅklwi pareqeto (of a man seeing with
difficulty).
x kribe©a: not attested before Cyr.Al. (v ad); commonly di (LSJ
kr©beia 1), occasionally met (Arist. PA 668b 29, J. AJ 1.214).
uggryai kteroi aÉtän pithdeÅouin n täi b©wi: after nearly a
century of observing human nature, consorting with all types, and scrupulously
comparing good and bad, ‘to write what the good and the bad practise in their
lives’ is disappointingly unambitious in aspiration and expression. katoi
(Edmonds 1929, from M) is rash.
3 kat gno Âa . . . gnh tr»pwn . . . Án tr»pon: clumsy repetitions.
6 Jerome borrows in this passage from Sen. 23, where Cicero explicitly refers back to 13.
Jerome does not actually name sapiens ille Graeciae, but the remark which he attributes
to him implies Theophrastus (cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.69 = T. fr. 34a Fortenbaugh). Themistocles
(or the like) in some manuscripts is either a crass interpolation or a corruption of an
intelligent interpolation Theophrastus. Cf. Fortenbaugh, Quellen 238.
163
COMMENTARY
proke©mena: this correction (of prok-), first printed (without comment) by

Stephanus, is found in several manuscripts, of which the earliest is Laur. 87.14
(11 Wilson), a descendant of A (Torraca (1974) 82, Stefanis (1994a) 118); others
are Laur. 60.25 (8 Wilson) and Vat. Urb. 119 (59 Wilson) (Stefanis 99). For the
corruption, II.8n.
t¦i o«konom©ai cräntai: ‘conduct the management (of themselves and their
affairs)’ is not a sensible expression.
o³ parade©gmai crÛmenoi: not o³ <Þ> p- (Schwartz), which would
be contrary to normal idiom, as exemplified by Th. 3.10.6 parade©gmai to±
progignomnoi crÛmenoi, Lys. 14.12 toÅtwi parade©gmati crÛmenoi, 32
ta± Ëmetrai reta± cr¦tai parade©gmai, 25.23, [And.] 4.22, Pl. Euthphr.
6e, R. 529d, 540a, Lg. 794e, Isoc. 1.51, 12.16, Lycurg. 83, D. 4.3, 24.144,
Aeschin. 1.92, Arist. EE 1216b 27, Plb. 1.20.15, D.S. 1.1.4, etc.
eÉchmonettoi: -etroi (Edmonds 1929, from M) may be better, but
is unwise.
aÉtän: aËtän (M. Schmidt), ‘so that they should not fail themselves’, is too
clever.
4 ¼n d parakolouq¦a© te ½rqä kaª e«d¦ai e« ½rqä lgw: cf. Pl. Phd.

89a proÅtreyen pr¼ t¼ parpeqa© te kaª ukope±n t¼n l»gon. The first
½rqä (om. d) is pointless. But eÉmaqä (Edmonds 1929, cl. Aeschin. 1.116
parakolouqe±n eÉmaqä) does the writer too much credit. Aorist e«d¦ai is
found in Arist. EN 1156b 27, [Arist.] Pr. 921 b 26, MM 1182 a 5 etc., Hp. and later
(LSJ edw, foot of col. 483a; Veitch 217, Schwyzer 1.755, 778, E. Mayser, Gram-
matik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit 1.2 (Berlin and Leipzig 1938) 145).
But the verb is ineptly chosen, and the writer may have mistakenly associated
it with e²don.
präton mn oÔn † poiomai† tän tn e«rwne©an zhlwk»twn: ‘I shall
first . . . those who have affected (striven after) dissembling’ (LSJ zhl»w ii).
In this sentence he appears to state what his first subject will be, and in the
next sentence he appears to describe what his technique will be: ‘I shall first
(speak of?) dissembling . . . And I shall begin with (the concept of) dissembling
and define it, then describe the dissembler.’ Taken this way, the language is
clumsily repetitive rather than tautologous. We need not contemplate deletion
(Pauw suggested that the two sentences are alternatives; Herwerden deleted
the former, Sitzler ¼n . . . zhlwk»twn) or the bold replacement of e«rwne©an
with ce©rona a¯rein (Bücheler, Edmonds 1929). But no remedy for the syntax
carries conviction. poiomai <t¼n l»gon p¼> (d) is a crude conjecture,
unacceptable without change (t¼n l»gon perª Herwerden, tn rcn p¼
Sitzler), all of these introducing further repetitive language (t¼n l»gon above,
rxomai below, p» below). poiomai t¼n . . . zhlwk»ta (Stefanis (1994a)
120) is an unlikely expression; and the plural tän zhlwk»twn (of a piece with
164
P R E FA C E
the plurals in several of the epilogues) is unexceptionable. mnomai (Needham)

and <mne©an> poiomai (Foss 1858) are unappealing.
jeª t¼ prooimizeqai kaª poll pra toÓ prgmato lgein: he will
move on to his first subject, dispensing with preamble and superfluous talk.
prgmato is ‘question, matter in hand’ (LSJ prgma ii.8), and pra toÓ
pr- is a blend of xw toÓ prgmato (LSJ xw i.2.b, Whitehead on Hyp. Eux.
31), actually proposed here by Edmonds 1929, and pra toÓ donto and
the like (LSJ pra iii.2). The preamble is this preface, not a preamble about
dissembling. To accept perª toÓ prgmato (AB) obliges us to take ‘the mat-
ter’ to be dissembling, and the preamble to be a preamble about dissembling,
with a feeble and repetitive sequence of thought, as may be seen in a typical
translation: ‘I shall speak first of those who affect dissembling, dispensing with
preliminaries and details about the topic. I shall begin with dissembling . . .’
(Rusten). The conjecture peritt prgmata in three descendants of A (Stefa-
nis (1994a) 84) is evidence that even a copyist sensed the feebleness. E. Mehler,
Mnemosyne 6 (1878) 404, proposed peritt (without prgmata), in ignorance
of that reading.
5 oÌtw: ‘simply’, ‘at once’, ‘without more ado’ (LSJ a.iv). Þ (Schwartz),
picked up by ka© at the beginning of the next sentence (‘ut . . . ita’), is not an
improvement.
e« t©na tr»pon katennektai: ‘to what manner of behaviour he is inclined’
(LSJ katajrw iii, katajer ii); unless ‘the character into which he has
drifted’ (Jebb) is better (II.2n.).
tän paqhmtwn: ‘affections of the mind’ (Jebb), ‘emotions’ (Rusten). How-
ever translated, the word is inept. And the partitive gen. with t lla is
abnormal.
kat gno: another clumsy repetition (§3).
kaqitnai: for kaqetnai (AB), first conjectured by Fischer, anticipated
(accented -nai) by two descendants of A (Torraca (1974) 82); much likelier
than katat¦ai (d).
165
I
THE DISSEMBLER
Introductory note
The etymology and primary meaning of erwn are uncertain. O. Ribbeck,
‘Ueber den Begriff des erwn’, RhM 31 (1876) 381 –400, remains fundamental.
See also L. Schmidt, Commentatio de erwno Notione apud Aristonem et Theophrastum
(Marburg 1873),7 W. Büchner, ‘Über den Begriff der Eironeia’, Hermes 76 (1941)
339–58, Z. Pavlovskis, ‘Aristotle, Horace, and the Ironic Man’, CPh 63 (1968)
22–41, L. Bergson, ‘Eiron und Eironeia’, Hermes 99 (1971) 409–22, F. Amory,
‘Eiron and Eironeia’, C&M 33 (1981) 49–80, J. Cotter, ‘The etymology and
earliest significance of erwn’, Glotta 70 (1992) 31 –4. There is nothing new
in G. Markantonatos, ‘On the origin and meaning of the word e«rwne©a’,
RFIC 103 (1975) 16–21. T. G. Rosenmeyer, ‘Ironies in serious drama’, in M. S.
Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond (Oxford 1996) 497–519,
gives a useful classification of types of irony, ancient and modern, and extensive
bibliography.
Before Aristotle the word and its cognates are found only in comedy, Plato
and the orators, who apply them to deceitful or dissembling behaviour, pre-
tence of ignorance or innocence, making of excuses, hypocrisy, disingenuous-
ness. They first appear in Aristophanes: Nu. 449 erwn in a catalogue of abusive
terms for trickster; V. 174 o¯an pr»jain kaq¦ken Þ e«rwnikä of a cunning
excuse; Au. 1211 e«rwneÅetai of pretended ignorance. In later comedy, Philem.
93.6 erwn t¦i jÅei of a fox, the epitome of slyness. They are applied dis-
paragingly to Socrates, who hoodwinks others by feigning ignorance (Pl. Ap.
37e, Cra. 384a, Grg. 489e, R. 337a, Smp. 216e, 218d; cf. Euthd. 302b, Lg. 908e,
Sph. 268a-d).8 When Demosthenes accuses his countrymen of e«rwne©a, he is
accusing them of shilly-shallying and inventing excuses to avoid their civic and
military duties (4.7, 37; cf. 60.18, Prooem. 14.3, Din. 2.11).
Aristotle, for whom each virtue is a mean between two opposed vices, places
e«rwne©a and lazone©a on opposite sides of lqeia.9 The lazÛn pretends
to more than the truth, the erwn to less: EN 1108a 19–23 perª mn oÔn t¼ lhq
¾ mn mo lhq ti kaª ¡ me»th lqeia legqw, ¡ d propo©hi ¡
7 Future editors of EN should assign the conjecture erwn for e«rwne©a at 1124 b 30 to
Schmidt (iv–v), not Susemihl (Teubner 1887), who had reviewed Schmidt in JAW 1
(1873) 207–9.
8 G. Vlastos, ‘Socratic irony’, CQ 37 (1987) 79–96 (= Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher
(Cambridge 1991) 21 –44), unconvincingly dissociates Socratic irony from deception
or pretence. See P. Gottlieb, CQ 42 (1992) 278–9, I. Vasiliou, CQ 49 (1999) 456–72, 52
(2002) 220–30.
9 See the Introduction, p. 6.
166
I: THE DISSEMBLER
mn pª t¼ me±zon lazone©a kaª ¾ cwn aÉtn lazÛn, ¡ d ì pª t¼ lat-
ton e«rwne©a kaª erwn <¾ cwn> (cf. EE 1221 a 6, 24–5, MM 1186a 25–6,
1193 a 28–35). The lazÛn claims creditable qualities that he does not pos-
sess or possesses to a lesser degree than he claims, while the erwn disclaims
or depreciates qualities that he does possess: EN 1127 a 20–3 doke± d ¾ mn
lazÜn propoihtik¼ tän nd»xwn e²nai kaª m Ëparc»ntwn kaª meiz»nwn
£ Ëprcei, ¾ d erwn npalin rne±qai t Ëprconta £ lttw poie±n.
The erwn wilfully misrepresents himself for the worse, the lazÛn for the
better: EE 1233 b 39–1234 a 2 ¾ mn gr pª t ce©rw kaq ì aËtoÓ yeud»meno
m gnoän erwn, ¾ d ì pª t belt©w lazÛn. For Aristotle, then, the mark of
the erwn is self-depreciation and self-denigration. He adds (EN 1127 b 22–32)
that the erwn is generally a more agreeable character (caritero) than the
lazÛn, for his motive is likely to be purer: not desire for gain but avoidance
of pomposity or ostentation (t¼ ½gkhr»n). But he can be commended only if
(like Socrates) he disowns what is creditable or highly esteemed (t ndoxa);
some manifestations of mock-humility (like extreme negligence of dress) are
no better than lazone©a. See also S. Vogt, Aristoteles, Physiognomica (Darmstadt
1999) 381 –4.
The Erwn of Theophrastus is very different. He does not depreciate or
denigrate himself. He conceals his true feelings (§2), feigns indifference to
criticism (§2), is evasive and non-committal and invents excuses (§4), capri-
ciously misleads (§5), and is pat with professions of disbelief (§6). He is, in
essence, a dissembler, and he dissembles without motive (Gomperz (1889) 15,
W. W. Fortenbaugh, Gnomon 68 (1996) 454).10 Some, indeed, have found him a
motive: to avoid trouble and inconvenience (Büchner (above) 348, Gaiser 28,
Bergson (above) 415, Stein 61 –2, Rusten 168); even ‘a polite indifference, an
unwillingness to be drawn into what, after all, does not concern him’ (Ussher).
This does not square with §2 (he goes out of his way to encounter his enemies,
when he could have avoided them) and §5 (to claim that you have something
for sale when you have not is to invite trouble).
Ariston of Keos draws a subtler and richer portrait of the erwn, and offers
a glimmer of a motive for his conduct.11 He is clever and persuasive; in
demeanour expressive and versatile, in behaviour unpredictable and some-
times dramatic. Ariston (or Philodemus) describes him as a type of lazÛn.
In so far as his aim, in his self-denigration, is to flatter others, he resembles the
*reko or the K»lax of Theophrastus.
10 See the Introduction, p. 12 n. 39.

11 Text in F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, vi: Lykon und Ariston von Keos (Basel 2 1968) fr.
14, VI–VIII, Rusten 190–4. On Ariston see the Introduction, pp. 9–10; on the erwn,
L. Schmidt, Ribbeck 395–8 (both cited above), Pasquali (1919) 15–16 = (1986) 88–9,
Knögel (cited p. 10 n. 29) 34–9, Büchner 350–3, Pavlovskis 26, Bergson 415–16 (all
cited above), Gigante (p. 10 n. 29) 127.
167
COMMENTARY
[1 ] Definition
mn oÔn: at the opening of a definition, only here and def. XII; elsewhere
only in two spurious passages (pr. 4, VIII.5). Presumably ‘oÔn emphasizing a
prospective mn’ (Denniston 473 (2)). Deletion of oÔn (Sicherl) is pointless.
d»xeien n e²nai: in definitions, transmitted in IV, VII, XXVI, XXVII,
restored for d»xeien e²nai in XVI, XXV and for d»xei e²nai in XIII, XXI,
XXIII; also in two spurious passages (VI.7, XVI.13); d»xeien n is ubiquitous
in Arist. and in T.’s other writings.
Þ tÅpwi labe±n: the same expression HP 1.1.6, CP 1.20.3, Arist. Top. 103 a 7
(cf. Pl. R. 559a ¯na tÅpwi lbwmen aÉt); similarly Þ tÅpwi perilabe±n HP
2.6.12, Arist. Top. 101 a 18, 105 b 19, Þ e«pe±n tÅpwi HP 1.1.6, 6.1.3, CP 4.9.4,
Þ tÅpwi e«pe±n Arist. Cat. 1 b 28, 11 b 20. Since Þ n tÅpwi is also found (HP
1.2.2, Pl. R. 414a, Arist. de An. fr. 4 (424 a 15), EN 1129a 11, Pol. 1323 a 10, Oec.
1345 b 12), Þ n (ac2 , combining Þ B and n A) could be right. Cf. def. IX,
XX Þ Ârwi labe±n (def. V perilabe±n, XIV e«pe±n); Hindenlang 70.
propo©hi pª ce±ron prxewn kaª l»gwn: ineptly expressed, like
def. XIII propo©h© ti l»gwn kaª prxewn met ì eÉno©a. A gen. after
propo©hi should be objective (‘pretence of’, ‘pretension to’), as in def.
XXIII propo©h© (Auberius: prodok©a V) ti gaqän oÉk Àntwn (fur-
ther examples in Stein). The writer appears to want ‘pretence (consisting) in’.
He has strung together vocabulary from EN 1108a 21 (propo©hi) and EE
1234 a 1 (pª t ce©rw), both quoted in the Introd. Note, and the common
Aristotelian pairing of prxei and l»goi (EN 1108a 11, 1127 a 20, 1128b 5, Rh.
1386b 3, 1400a 16, MM 1193 a 2, 21 ; also Pl. Sph. 219c, [Pl.] Def. 413b). There are
similar pairings of speech and action in def. VI, VIII, XIV. Perhaps pª <t¼>
ce±ron (Mac, coni. Casaubon), as XXIX.5 and consistently in Aristotle (EN
1138a 1, Metaph. 1019a 27, 1019b 2, 1046a 14, Pol. 1332 b 2, Rh. 1389b 21, 1390a 5,
1416b 11, MM 1196a 29, also Diph. 104.2; similarly, in the passages quoted in the
Introd. Note, EN 1108a 21 –2 pª t¼ me±zon . . . pª t¼ latton, EE 1233 b 39 pª
t ce©rw); cf. def. V pª täi belt©twi, XVII par t¼ pro¦kon, XXVIII
e« t¼ ce±ron. And perhaps propo©h© <ti> (Orth), as in def. XIII and
XXIV (ti also def. XVIII, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI).
Self-denigration (if that is what ‘pretence for the worse in action and speech’
is designed to express) is characteristic of the erwn of Aristotle, but not of
Theophrastus. And the sketch exemplifies l»goi but not prxei. Further
discussion in Gomperz (1889) 3–4, 14–16, Stein 62–4.
2 ¾ d erwn toioÓt» ti o³o: toioÓto (ti) o³o + infin. is a common

formula, introducing a generalised description of behaviour or personality
(e.g. Pl. Ap. 31a, Cri. 46b, Cra. 395a, X. HG 6.5.7, Cyr. 1.2.3, Mem. 2.6.37,
D. 25.39, Antiph. 166.6–8, 188.5–6, often in Aristotle; similarly Ariston fr. 14,
168
I: THE DISSEMBLER
I and VII) or a character type (e.g. [Arist.] MM 1203 a 1 –2 ¾ mn gr k»lato
toioÓt» ti o³o, VV 1251 b 22 ti d toioÓt» tin ¾ mikr»yuco o³o). The
sketches normally begin, after the spurious definition, ¾ d (name of character)
toioÓt» (or toi»de) ti o³o. The behaviour of AB and V, when examined
as a whole, suggests that divergences are the product of corruption, not of a
desire for variety. Here ti B, tin A. In I-XV B has ti in twelve sketches,
omits ti in two (IX, XI), and has tin instead of ti in one (III). Of the twelve
where B has ti, A has ti in seven (II in effect, VIII, X, XII, XIII, XIV, XV),
omits ti in one (IV), has ti ti in one (VII), ti(n) in three (I, V, VI); in the
remaining three, A like B omits ti in two (IX, XI) and has tin instead of ti
in one (III). In XVI-XXX, V has ti in twelve, omits ti in one (XXVI), has
ti with ti in one (XXIX ti toi»de ti), and ti with abnormal word
order in one (XXX ti d toioÓto ¾). It is reasonable to regard ti, when it
occurs, as an interpolation. And it is reasonable to restore ti in the few places
where it is not attested (III, IX, XI, XXVI, XXX); scribes who could omit o³o
(XIII) or toioÓto (XXV) could as easily omit ti. The only variations then
remaining to the pattern are II t¼n d k»laka toioÓt»n tina ãte (where
the accusatives cannot be right), V mlei added (and to be deleted) before
toioÓto, and the unique word order in XXX (to be remedied by ¾ d . . .
toioÓt» ti).
We do not know how Theophrastus himself began the sketch. Perhaps
ëO erwn toioÓt» t© tin o³o. Or ëO erwn toioÓt» ti o³o, since tin
is dispensable (Pl. Cri. 46b, Arist. EE 1245 b 14–15, and MM 1203 a 1 –2 cited
above).
proelqÜn to± cqro±: contrast XXIV.6 proelqe±n pr»tero oÉdenª
qel¦ai. The verb denotes a deliberate encounter (XI.7, XII.2, 4, XIII.7,
8, XX.4n.), not an accidental one, such as might have been expressed by
ntugcnwn (VII.2, XXIV.8; but see §4n.).
qlein lale±n † oÉ mie±n† : ‘He is willing to chat with his enemies, not hate
them’ is unacceptable, for three reasons. (i) The sense is inept: qlein (XV.10,
XVI.9, XXIV.6, all with negative) suits lale±n (Introd. Note to VII) but not
mie±n. We may not translate qlein as ‘pflegen’, ‘be accustomed to’ (Steinmetz),
since this sense requires an inanimate subject (LSJ ii.2). (ii) Asyndeton of posi-
tive and negative verbs is not in T.’s manner. His manner is negative + ll +
positive: §4 below, VI.5, XV.4, XVI.6, 9, XVII.4, XVIII.6, 8, XIX.3, XXII.6,
10, XXIV.13, XXIX.5. (iii) The negative ought to be m, not oÉ (VI.9n.).
Deletion of oÉ mie±n (Darvaris before Ussing) is gratuitous: there was no
motive for addition, and the expression is too crass for a gloss on lale±n. Of
conjectures which retain lale±n none appeals: q- l- oÉ miän Pauw, [qlein]
l- <Þ> oÉ miän Bloch (cf. II.4 Þ d oÉ), q- l- <Þ> oÉ miän Dobree, q-
l- <dokän jile±n> oÉ mie±n Darvaris, l- qlwn <d»xai> oÉ mie±n Foss 1834,
q- l- oÉ <dokän> mie±n Herwerden, q- l- <kaª propoie±qai jile±n> oÉ
169
COMMENTARY
mie±n Ribbeck 1876, q- l- <kaª> ¾mile±n (q- ¾mile±n Pierson ap. Naber) Birt
(Kritik und Hermeneutik 35 n. 2). Some descendants of A (Torraca (1974) 83)
replace lale±n with a trite conjecture jile±n: hence q- jile±n <doke±n> oÉ
m- Reiske 1757 (q- doke±n oÉ m- Haupt), q- jile±n oÍ mie± Schneider (q- l-
oÍ mie± Nauck 1863, where oÍ mie± becomes an otiose appendage after to±
cqro±). Conceivably lale±n (B) is no less an error than labe±n (A); and we
might consider laqe±n,12 matching lqrai immediately below. But we cannot
have either q- laqe±n miän (Kayser) or q- laqe±n Âti mie± (Navarre 1918, same
construction as Pl. Phd. 64a-b, Tht. 174b, Alc.1 109d, X. Mem. 3.5.24, Oec. 1.19),
since qlein does not suit laqe±n. Moreover, concealment of hatred, passive
behaviour, is a less telling detail than chatting to enemies, active dissimulation.
Conventional morality dictates that enemies should be treated as enemies, and
insults openly resented (Dover, Greek Popular Morality 180–4).
kaª paine±n par»nta o³ pqeto lqrai: cf. Arist. Rh. 1383 b 30 t¼ . . .
paine±n par»nta kolake©a (sc. hme±»n ti), Ariston fr. 14, VII (of the erwn)
paine±n Án yge[i.
kaª toÅtoi ullupe±qai ¡tthmnoi: defeat in law (the defeat must have
a specific context, and law is the obvious one), as XI.7 ¡tthmnwi (Schnei-
der: ¡ttwm- AB) . . . meglhn d©khn, XXIX.2 to± ¡tthmnoi kaª dhmo©ou
gäna Ýjlhk»i. The verb, when used in this connection, is often qualified
by some addition (d©khn, grajn, n dikathr©wi, or the like). But it is also
found unqualified (e.g. S. Ai. 1242, Pl. Lg. 936e, D. 20.146, 36.25, 43.4, 7,
47.2). There is therefore no need for <megla d©ka> ¡tt- (Meier 1850/1)
or <d©khn> ¡tt- (Navarre 1920). Present ¡ttwmnoi (AB) should be changed
to perfect (Schwartz; that M has ¡tthmnoi is of no consequence, since it also
has beboulhmnoi for boulomnoi in §3). Although, like nikn ‘be victorious’,
present ¡ttqai can mean ‘be defeated’, ‘be in a state of defeat’, particularly
in military contexts (Mastronarde on E. Ph. 1232), it would less naturally be
applied to being in a state of legal defeat. A perfect part. is guaranteed by
the coordinated perfect at XXIX.2 and is more appropriate than the trans-
mitted present at XI.7, where a specific event is referred to (cf. also S. Ai.
1242 ¡hmnoi, D. 27.25 pr¼ t©na d©khn ¤tthntai, 45.51 paragrajn
¡tthmno).
toÅtoi is resumptive, referring to the persons just mentioned, as VI.4
toÅtwn, 9 toÅtoi, XIV.3 taÅthn, XX.10 taÅthn (conj.), XXV.5 toÓton,
8 toÅtwn, XXVII.2 taÅta. Additions have been proposed which would
12 laq- corrupted to lal- S. fr. 83, Ar. Th. 419 (-lanq- to -lamb- CP 1.5.3), lab- to
laq- VII.7, VIII.5 (AB), IX.4 (d). On the other hand, lal- to lab- Men. fr. 129.3.
There is a correction or variant in A: le or li above l (Diels), li above l (Immisch
1923), lei ‘supra versum ante labe±n’ (Torraca (1974) 83). This last (to judge from
the photograph) is the most plausible diagnosis. I take lei to indicate not le©bein for
labe±n (Torraca), but qlei (an attested variant, Torraca loc.cit.) for qlein.
170
I: THE DISSEMBLER
clarify the reference: ¡tthmnoi <o³ . . . > Meier 1850/1, to± ntiploi
(for toÅtoi) Hartung, <kaª pr¼ oÍ ntidike±> kaª toÅtoi Edmonds 1929,
kaª <o³ (or pr¼ oÍ) dikzetai> toÅtoi Kassel ap. Stein (toÅtoi picking
up the relative, III.2n.). Such clarification is neither necessary nor desirable. If
the dissembler sympathises with the same people, when they have lost a case,
whom he praises openly and attacks covertly, they can have no reason to suspect
that his sympathy and praise are insincere. With the proposed supplements
he sympathises with persons against whom he has been at odds. In this case
one might suppose that his earlier antagonism would afford some cause for
suspecting his sincerity.
kaª . . . d: ‘a natural enough combination, the former particle denoting that
something is added, the latter that what is added is distinct from what precedes’
(Denniston 199). A. Rijksbaron, ‘Adverb or connector? The case of kaª . . . d’,
in Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles (Amsterdam 1997) 187–208,
argues that (in classical Greek generally) ka© not d is the connector, while ‘the
function of d is to individualize the second item’. ka© is certainly the connector
in T., whose use of d is severely restricted (VI.9n.). kaª . . . d is attested 71 times
(including spurious VI.7, epil. X bis). I restore it by conjecture in epil. III, VI.9,
VIII.8, XVI.15, XXX.17, and contemplate restoring it in VII.4, 7 bis, XX.3,
XXVIII.5. It usually stands at the head of a new sentence, or of a new clause
after a strong break, but occasionally adds a new item in a series where there
is no strong break (II.4 bis, 6, V.6, XI.8, XXIX.3). It connects only clauses
or items which are part of the main infinitive structure (that is, are dependent
on introductory o³o or dein»). No other author uses it so frequently as does
Theophrastus in this work, where it conveniently introduces variety into a
potentially monotonous series of infinitives linked by ka©. For T.’s other works
(where it is also common) see Müller (1874) 22. Rijksbaron 188 n. 4 gives figures
for the major authors. For the orators, Wyse on Is. 9.11 ; the papyri, E. Mayser,
Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit II.3 (Berlin and Leipzig 1934)
131 –2. For the use of ka© in passages of character drawing, S. Trenkner, Le style
ka© dans le récit attique oral (Assen 1960) 24–6.
uggnÛmhn . . . cein to± aËt¼n kakä lgoui kaª pª to± kaq ì autoÓ
legomnoi <geln>: although uggnÛmhn cein may be constructed with
p© + dat. (Arist. Rh. 1374 b 4), the second phrase is feebly repetitive and needs
a colourful verb to give it point. There is nothing to choose between geln
(after legomnoi Darvaris, after ka© Rusten) and pi<geln> (Edmonds 1929;
cf. II.3, 4); another possibility is meidin (Büchner (Introd. Note); cf. VIII.2).
For geln p©, Pl. Euthd. 300e, R. 457b, 518b, X. Oec. 7.3, Smp. 2.17, 18,
23, Cyr. 4.5.55, Ar. Ra. 2, Men. Pk. 293–4 (LSJ gelw ii.1). Less effectively,
prw cein Fischer, reme±n or ca©rein or prw jrein Reiske 1757, oÉk
ganakte±n Ast (wrong neg.: VI.9n.), m ganakte±n (after ka©) Meier 1850/1
(after leg- Hartung), m cqeqai (after ka©) Navarre 1920. It is rash to delete
171
COMMENTARY
kaª . . . legomnoi (Schneider (1799) 214, anticipating Bloch; also Dobree,

who proposed, alternatively, deletion of ka© alone) or to speculate that this and
to± . . . lgoui are author’s variants (Stein; similar suggestions at III.3, IV.12,
VI.6).
With the sentiment in general cf. Eub. 25.2–3 (a k»lax) to± kÛptoui . . .
| aut¼n eÉ»rghto, Axionic. 6.9–11 (parasite) o³on j©ler© t© ti kaª mc-
eta© t© moi· | metebal»mhn pr¼ toÓton Âa t ì erhk me | kakä ¾mologän
eÉqw oÉ blptomai, Men. fr. 513 kakä koÅein Âti oÉk ½rg©zetai |
ponhr©a pit¼n tekmrion jrei, Nicol.Com. 1.31 (parasite) de± kwpt»menon
j ì autäi geln.
aËt¼n . . . kaq ì autoÓ: if we wish to restore consistency, the choice between
aut»n and aËtoÓ (Navarre 1920) is arbitrary. The form autis attested
(besides here) at §6 (doubtful because of corruption), XI.8, XIV.10, XXII.10,
XXV.8, XXVII.12, XXX.16 (V: aÉt- AB), 17, 18 bis (but I reject one instance,
for a reason given below). In the other places (about 60) where a reflexive
form is needed, always aÉt-, which I change to aËt- (restored here by Diels
1898), except that (with no conviction) I take VIII.8 d aÉtäi to point to d ì
autäi rather than d aËtäi or d ì aËtäi. Trace of an original aËt- or aut-
is preserved in XXIV.9 Ëj ì aÉt»n.
The presence of a reflexive here suggests that we may restore a reflexive in
passages of similar participial structure elsewhere: IV.3 (the preceding toÆ
aËtoÓ (aÉt- AB) o«kta would be sufficient to commend to± par ì aËtäi
(aÉt- AB) rgazomnoi), XV.6, XVIII.5, 9, XXX.3. In addition to the many
further passages where reflexive may be restored without argument, I restore
it in clauses which are dependent on a verb of speech or command or the like,
but not in clauses which are not so dependent (conditional, III.3 ad fin., VII.2,
VIII.7, XVI.6, 8; temporal, XXIV.8, XXVIII.4; gen. absol., XIV.7, XXI.9,
XXII.9, XXIII.2, XXX.18). Hence such variations as VII.2 e«pe±n, n ¾tioÓn
pr¼ aÉt¼n jqgxhtai, Âti . . . n koÅhi aËtoÓ, maqetai, XXVIII.4,
XXX.18. See in general KG 2.560–4 (contrast Schwyzer 2.194).
3 kaª † pr¼ toÆ dikoumnou kaª ganaktoÓnta† prw dialgeqai:

‘talk mildly to those who are wronged and are resenting it’. If the point is that,
just as he pretends to make light of criticisms of himself, so he takes too lightly
the grievances of others, then the point is unclearly formulated and of doubtful
aptness. I see no help in a passage often cited in illustration, X. An. 1.5.14 ¾ d ì
calpainen (Clearchus) Âti aÉtoÓ ½l©gou deanto kataleuq¦nai prw
lgoi (Polemarchus) t¼ aËtoÓ pqo (‘C. resented the fact that, when he
had nearly been stoned to death, P. made light of his experience’). In other
circumstances mild talk might serve the purpose of dissimulation (‘He was the
mildest manner’d man . . . you never could divine his real thought’, Byron,
172
I: THE DISSEMBLER
Don Juan, Canto III.321 –4). Aristotle actually links proi kaª erwne in Rh.
1382 b 20. But these mild dissemblers are concealing resentment at wrongs
which they themselves have suffered; they are more to be feared than the
sharp-tempered and outspoken, with whom you know where you stand. If the
wrongs have been suffered by others, then a dissembler will feign indignation,
not mildness. The thought is not much improved if toÆ dikoumnou is taken
as ‘those who are being wronged by him’ (so e.g. Casaubon, Gomperz (1889) 15,
Pasquali). In any case, clarity calls for toÆ <Ëp ì aÉtoÓ> d- (Meier 1850/1),
or rather <Ëj ì autoÓ> (Hartung). There is no satisfactory conjecture: not
kaª dikoÅmeno pr¼ toÆ ganaktoÓnta Ribbeck 1870, since he would
more appropriately address mild speech to persons doing him wrong than to
persons resenting his wrongs; nor kaª pª to± kaq ì autoÓ legomnoi [kaª]
pr¼ toÆ dik<a ¡g>oumnou Ussing (toÆ dihgoumnou Cobet 1874),
since pª ktl. does not well cohere with what follows. For prw dialgeqai,
Plu. 800c, D.C. 9.40.22, 76.4.3.
4 I follow Ussing, and take kaª to± . . . malakiq¦nai as a single sentence.

When people wish to meet him urgently he tells them to come back later.
He postpones the meeting as inconvenient, claiming with a lack of candour
(mhdn æn prttei ¾molog¦ai) that: (i) he has not yet made up his mind on
the question to which they seek an answer (bouleÅeqai), (ii) he has only just
returned home (rti paragegonnai), (iii) it is late (½y g©gneqai), (iv) he had
fallen ill (malakiq¦nai). The traditional division is after panelqe±n, so that a
new train of thought, unrelated to what precedes, begins at kaª mhdn. This is
less satisfactory, for the following reasons. (a) To tell visitors to return later is
not dissimulation; it becomes dissimulation when a pretence of unavailability
is offered. (b) The excuses alleged in (ii), (iii) and (iv) are very appropriate
examples of such a pretence, and (i), although less obviously appropriate, can
be taken as an example. (c) In §2, §3 and §5 the victims of dissimulation are
identified (to± cqro±, to± aËt¼n kakä lgoui, toÆ dikoumnou (?),
to± . . . boulomnoi, toÆ daneizomnou kaª ran©zonta). But if a new train
of thought begins at kaª mhdn, the victims of the dissimulation practised in §4
are not identified; and no connection of thought or circumstance then links
the four examples of dissimulation. The supplement kaª <paraklhqeª pr¼
d©aitan> propoiaqai (Kassel ap. Stein) partially answers the problem
posed in (c), by supplying a new circumstance for (ii), (iii) and (iv). Stein,
too, argues that kaª propoiaqai must begin a new train of thought, for
otherwise it would be otiose after ll j¦ai. But the same verbs are paired
in §5.
Transposition of kaª mhdn . . . bouleÅeqai has been proposed: (i) after
malakiq¦nai (Schneider), (ii) after oraknai in §5 (Hottinger), (iii) exchanged
173
COMMENTARY
with kaª . . . ran©zonta (Foss 1858). In (i), ll j¦ai bouleÅeqai gives a weak
conclusion, serving only as the antithesis to mhdn æn prttei ¾molog¦ai; in
(ii), it unbalances the series into which it is inserted; in (iii), we have the same
weakness as in (i), and kaª . . . ran©zonta is not appropriately placed.
kaª to± ntugcnein kat poudn boulomnoi protxai panelqe±n:
he tells them to ‘come back’ (as IX.2 (conj.), XXV.7), rather than ‘go back
home’ (Edmonds). For ntugcnein used of an encounter which is not acci-
dental (§2n.), XXIV.2 täi peÅdonti p¼ de©pnou nteÅxeqai jkein n täi
peripate±n, Men. Asp. 93 ntuce±n bouloma© ti . . . oi, Dysc. 751, Sic. 183
(LSJ ii.1).
kaª mhdn æn prttei ¾molog¦ai ll j¦ai bouleÅeqai: he claims
that he is at present occupied in thought. bouleÅeqai (Casaubon)13 is too like
kyeqai in §5. <ti> bouleÅeqai (Herwerden, from M) is unwanted.
kaª propoiaqai rti paragegonnai kaª ½y g©gneqai [aÉt»n]:
aorist propoiaqai (as XXIII.7) of a statement of pretence, by contrast
with present propoie±qai in §5 of a state of pretence (V.6n.). He pretends
that he has just arrived and that ‘it is late’. While paragegonnai refers (cor-
rectly) to present time, aorist genqai (AB), being in indirect speech, would
refer (incorrectly) to past time (KG 1.193–4), ‘it was late’, and must therefore be
changed to present g©gneqai, easily corrupted by way of g©neqai, the usual
spelling (II.2n.). The verb in the expression ½y g©gneqai / e²nai is impersonal
(Pl. Smp. 217d khpt»meno Âti ½y eh, X. An. 3.4.36 ½y g©gneto, D. 21.84
t¦ . . . ãra g©gnet ì ½y; commonly ½y §n, Th. 1.50.5, 8.61.3, Pl. Ly. 223a,
X. HG 1.7.7, etc.). A personal subject aÉt»n (aËt»n Ussing) is impossible;
and ‘he’ as subject would be nominative not accusative. Deletion of aÉt»n
(Hottinger before Navarre 1920) is more plausible than deletion of the whole
phrase kaª ½y genqai aÉt»n (Kassel ap. Rusten). No other proposal satisfies:
aÉtoÓ Reiske 1749 (Briefe 359), ‘ibi’, anticipating Edmonds and Austen (who
translate ‘he is late for some function (lit. “is there late”)’; cf. Edmonds (1908)
119); aÉtän Edmonds 1929, ‘joined the company late’; aËtäi Foss 1858, an
unexampled and unwanted dative; pani»nto Reiske 1757, apparently ‘it was
late when he returned’; ½y genqai kaª malakiq¦nai aÉt»n Nast (kaª aÉt¼n
m- Schneider), acc. where nom. is needed; hence kaª aÉt¼ m- Torraca 1994a,
with pointless emphasis.
kaª malakiq¦nai: of illness, as XIII.9, a sense first attested in Arist. HA
605 a 25 (LSJ 3); not cowardice, irresolution (Rusten). The aorist infin. repre-
sents an original malak©qhn (‘I became ill’), the so-called ‘ingressive’ aorist
(KG 1.155–6), as Th. 2.42.4, 43.6, 5.9.10, 72.1, 7.68.3 (in all of these ‘became
a coward’), Arr. An. 7.3.1 (indir. speech, as here) malakiq¦nai gr ti täi
Ûmati t¼n Klanon . . . oÎpw pr»qen noanta.
13 Not (as Fischer claims) Cantabr. (4 Wilson).
174
I: THE DISSEMBLER
5 Borrowing and lending, buying and selling, are recurrent themes (Millett,
‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 168, id. Lending and Borrowing 5–6), and illustrate a
variety of traits: here caprice and obfuscation, with no implication of meanness
or eye for gain.
kaª pr¼ toÆ daneizomnou kaª ran©zonta < . . .: active dane©zein is
‘lend’ (VI.9), middle ‘have oneself lent, borrow’ (IX.2, 7, XXX.3, 7), usually
of money lent at interest, occasionally (as IX.7) of goods (Korver, Crediet-Wezen
79–84, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 28–30). ran©zein is ‘raise an interest-
free loan from friends’. On the rano (XV.7, XVII.9, XXII.9, XXIV.6),
Finley, Studies in Land and Credit 100–6, J. Vondeling, Eranos (Groningen 1961),
Millett, ‘Patronage’ 41 –3, id. ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 183–4, 187, Lend-
ing and Borrowing 153–9, E. E. Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking
Perspective (Princeton 1992) 207–15 (208 n. 112 on this passage),14 MacDowell
on D. 21.101, Arnott on Alex. 145.5, Lane Fox 146–7. A single article suf-
fices with the two participles, which are equivalent to nouns (‘applicants for
loans and applicants for contributions’); cf. XXIV.7 toÆ pwloÓnt ti £
miqoumnou, also IV.3 to± . . . j©loi kaª o«ke©oi, VII.6 (spurious), XXVIII.6
(KG 1.611 –12).
To complete the sense we need something like ‘he says that he has no money’.
There are numerous supplements: <e«pe±n Þ oÉk rgÅrion cei Salmasius
(De Usuris Liber (Leiden 1688) 62–3),15 Þ rgÅrion oÉk cei Jebb, doÆ polÆ
j¦ai Þ oÉ ploute± Ribbeck, calepä proenegkmeno (or proenecqeª)
did»nai jeidä Wachsmuth ap. Ilberg 1897, pen©an proja©zeqai Fraenkel
and Groeneboom (cl. Lys. 22.13), j¦ai Þ oÉdn cei Diels, lgein doÆ Âti
laqe±n boÅletai Navarre 1920, e«pe±n Þ oÉ ploute± Edmonds 1929, j¦ai Þ
pore±tai or crhmtwn pore± Kassel ap. Stein, lgein Þ oÉk eÉpore± Stein.
I add e«pe±n Þ rgÅrion oÉ tugcnei par»n (or oÉ preti); cf. D. 30.11,
33.7, 53.12. rgÅrion in similar contexts: XIV.8, XV.7, XVII.9, XVIII.5. It is
less plausible to look for the missing expression in Þ oÉ pwle±, and to assume
that pwle± is an error of anticipation prompted by the following pwlän: e.g.
oÉ col Pauw, oÉk cei or aÉtäi de± Petersen, oÉ ploute± M. Schmidt, oÉk
eÉpore± Bücheler.
. . . > Þ oÉ pwle± kaª m pwlän j¦ai pwle±n: pwle±n ‘offer for sale’
as opposed to pod©doqai ‘sell’ (X.7n.). Salmasius’ supplement . . . pr¼
d toÆ Ýnhtiänta> has merit: it balances pr¼ toÆ daneizomnou kaª
ran©zonta, identifies the victims of dissimulation, and excuses the omission
(parablepsy -onta < . . . -änta>). The verb Ýnhtin is used in a similar
connection at XXIII.7 to± pwloÓi propoiaqai Ýnhtin. But to supply
14 He fails to substantiate his claim that an rano might attract interest.

15 The ungrammatical e²en printed there, which editors have continued to ascribe to
him, is corrected to cei in the ‘Emendanda’ at the end.
175
COMMENTARY
a verb of speech (e«pe±n or the like) from the preceding clause, legitimate in
itself (as below t mn kyeqai jkein, t d ktl.), creates imbalance, since
the following pwle±n has its own verb of speech. Style would be better served
by kaª pr¼ toÆ Ýnhtiänta d j¦ai, though this forfeits the excuse of
parablepsy. For kaª . . . d (§2n.) with prep., art., noun or part. interposed, IV.12,
V.4, VII.5, XXIII.5, XXIX.5 (conj.). Alternatively, ka© on its own without
d (Herwerden), rather than d on its own (VI.9n.). Simpler proposals: kaª
pwlän (pwlän ti Kassel: cf. X.7, XV.4, XXIV.7) j¦ai Ast, kaª pwlän
lgein Foss 1858, kaª pwlän Edmonds 1929. The correction of jei (AB)
to j¦ai was made by Bloch 1814, Darvaris 1815, Schneider 1818,16 Dobree
(obiit 1825).
kaª koÅa ti m propoie±qai kaª «dÜn j¦ai m oraknai: this echoes
a proverbial expression, used either of pretence (h.Merc. 92 ka© te «dÜn m
«dÜn e²nai kaª kwj¼ koÅa, D. 25.88 oÌtw taÓq ì ¾räin ãte m doke±n
oraknai, 89 oÌtw ¾ränte . . . ãte, t¼ t¦ paroim©a, ¾ränta m
¾rn kaª koÅonta m koÅein, Plu. 13e nia tän prattomnwn ¾ränta
m ¾rn kaª m koÅein koÅonta, Pl. Mil. 572–3 illud quod scies nesciueris |
nec uideris quod uideris, Lib. Or. 47.6 kat tn paroim©an . . . ¾rÛntwn kaª oÉc
¾rÛntwn; cf. A. Th. 246 m nun koÅou ì mjanä kou ì gan, [Men.] Mon.
48 Jäkel m prokei mt ì koue mq ì Âra), or of incapacity (A. Ag. 1623 oÉc
¾ri ¾rän tde;, [A.] PV 447–8 blponte blepon mthn, | klÅonte oÉk
¢kouon, S. fr. 923.2 oÉd ì ¾ränte e«oräi tmjan¦, Matt. 13.13 blponte
oÉ blpouin kaª koÅonte oÉk koÅouin); R. Strömberg, Greek Proverbs
(Göteborg 1954) 15.
m propoie±qai is ‘pretend not’, as Th. 3.47.4 de± d, kaª e« d©khan,
m propoie±qai, Aeschin. 3.201 n . . . m propoi¦tai Ëmän koÅein, Sr
Ar. Eq. 43 Ëp»kwjon· Âti pollki koÅwn oÉ proepoie±to (F. Montana,
Eikasmos 11 (2000) 89), D. 8.58, 47.10, Men. Epit. fr. 9 Koerte (p. 130 Sandbach,
p. 520 Arnott), Philem. 23.4, Plb. 5.25.7; J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax
2 (Basel 1924) 262. For the tense see on §4 propoiaqai.
In j¦ai m oraknai the neg. m at first sight surprises. When neg. follows
verb of speech, oÉ is regular, m rare (KG 2.193–4); so oÉk e«dnai below,
IV.2, XIX.2, XX.9, XXIII.5. Possible alternative word order was m j- -,
like XXIV.5 oÉ jkwn colzein (KG 2.180–1, A. C. Moorhouse, Studies
in the Greek Negatives (Cardiff 1959) 121 –37). The choice of order was perhaps
dictated by what follows. If (as seems likely) j¦ai is to be supplied with the
following memn¦qai (just as, below, jkein is to be supplied with t d oÉk
e«dnai ktl.), the order j¦ai m oraknai ensures that memn¦qai will have
16 Ast claims that Schneider first made the correction on L. Bos, Ellipsis Graeca p. 325,
and so anticipated Bloch. I cannot trace which edition of this much reprinted work
he refers to.
176
I: THE DISSEMBLER
its own negative, which for clarity it needs, whereas m j¦ai oraknai would
have entailed a potentially confusing memn¦qai without negative.
For the spelling oraknai (wr- AB), Arnott on Alex. 274.1, id. ‘Ortho-
graphical variants’ 204.
kaª t mn kyeqai jkein: cf. Men. 349.1 –2 o¬ t ½jrÓ aronte Þ
blteroi | kaª “kyomai” lgonte. Not kyaqai (AB): a past tense would
anticipate and enfeeble the last clause (t d . . . dialog©aqai).
t d oÉk e«dnai: cf. [Arist.] MM 1193 a 32–3 (the erwn) o²den m jkwn
ll ì pikrupt»meno t¼ e«dnai.
t d ì ¢dh pot kaª aÉt¼ oÌtw dialog©aqai: it is unclear (perhaps
designedly) whether ‘he once had the same thought himself’ means only that
he has anticipated a particular line of thought or that, having anticipated it,
he has now abandoned it. ¢dh pot refers to unspecified past time: HP 2.3.3,
3.1.3, H. Il. 1.260, A. Eu. 50, S. Ai. 1142, E. Hi. 375, Ar. Nu. 346, Ra. 62, 931,
Pl. Ly. 215c, Cra. 386a, Min. 316c, Ep. 329e, X. Mem. 3.13.4, 4.3.3, Hier. 6.7,
Isoc. 6.29, D. 24.51, Aeschin. 1.63, 3.193, Arist. HA 633 a 8. dialog©aqai is
not ‘conclude’ ( Jebb, al.) but ‘reason, think carefully, weigh up the facts’. The
verb refers to the process of reasoning, not the attainment of a conclusion,
although it may be implied that a conclusion follows from the reasoning: e.g.
Pl. Phlb. 58d j»dra dianohqnte kaª ¬kanä dialogimenoi, Is. 7.45 taÓta
pnta keymenoi kaª dialogiz»menoi pr¼ Ëm aÉtoÅ, D. 18.98 oÉd ì Ëpr
o³a pepoihk»twn nqrÛpwn kinduneÅete dialogimenoi, 30.30 jei g ì n
ti, e« dialog©zoit ì ½rqä kat ì aÉtän, Isoc. 6.90 cr dialogiamnou m
jiloyuce±n, 17.9 taÓta dialogiz»meno dienoe±to, Men. Epit. 252–3 n nuktª
bouln . . . | didoÆ mautäi dielogiz»mhn, 563–4 Þ ken | kaª dialog©zomì
¾ kakoda©mwn, prodokän. . . . For the verb combined with oÌtw, Lycurg. 32
oËtwª d dialog©zeqe perª toÅtwn par ì Ëm±n aÉto±, Aeschin. 3.179.
6 His sceptical mode of speech is illustrated by two separate sets of quoted

remarks. The first is a trio of brief verbal expressions, general in application,
not related to any specific circumstance.17 The second is a series of fuller
expressions, prompted (it appears) by a specific report. They are more naturally
taken as independent remarks than as continuous speech.
t¼ Âlon: ‘as a whole’, ‘speaking generally’, here introducing the final sen-
tence, while at XXVIII.3 (where there is some corruption) it appears to intro-
duce a summatory description. In X and XXIX it introduces the spurious
epilogues (cf. epil. II t¼ kejlaion); and Ilberg 1897 suggests that it may have
been added here by the author of the epilogues. Though dispensable, it is
unobjectionable. It occurs frequently in T.’s other works (e.g. HP 1.4.1, CP
17 ‘He had some favourite interjections – “Monstrous!” “Incredible!” “Don’t tell me”’
(P. Ackroyd, Dickens (1990) ch. 9, of John Forster).
177
COMMENTARY
1.17.9, Lap. 19); also Pl. Men. 79c, Phdr. 261 a, Ion 532c, e, X. Mem. 4. 1. 2, D.
2. 22, 44.11, 19, Prooem. 45.4, [Arist.] MM 1206a 25.
dein¼ täi toioÅtwi tr»pwi toÓ l»gou cr¦qai: cf. XXVI.3 dein¼ to±
toioÅtoi tän l»gwn craqai. dein» with infin. appears in most of the
sketches, normally near the end, to introduce variety. It does not mean ‘adept
at’ but something like ‘remarkably apt to’: this is proved by (above all) XIX.3
dein¼ . . . lkh cein. A shift from ‘adept’ towards ‘apt’ can be seen in such pas-
sages as CP 2.18.4 ¾ o²no dein¼ lkÅai t k tän parakeimnwn ½m, fr.
73 Wimmer (488 Fortenbaugh) kopo gr ¡ tÅch . . . kaª dein parelqai
t propeponhmna, D. 2.20 a¬ gr eÉprax©ai deinaª ugkrÅyai t toiaÓt ì
½ne©dh, 21.139 deino© tin e«in . . . jqe©reqai pr¼ toÆ plou©ou, Prooem.
55.3 dein»tatoi . . . t ì jelqai . . . Â ì Ëm±n Ëprcei. Similarly Plu. 59d
(in a character sketch) uggenän kaª o«ke©wn pemb¦nai dein¼ martmai
kaª mhdna qaumai ktl. The use is perhaps colloquial. It has an analogy
in English: ‘She’s a terrible one to laugh’ (Dickens, Martin Chuzzlewit, ch. 11),
‘Little Charles was a terrible boy to read’ (a contemporary of Dickens, quoted
by Ackroyd (n. 17), ch. 2).
kaª † lgei aut¼n teron gegonnai† : possibly, but not certainly, the first
of the new series of quoted remarks. kaª “Lgei aÉt¼n teron gegonnai”
(Foss), ‘You are telling me that he has become a different person’,18 though
much favoured, is improbable. teron g- would be like Pl. Phdr. 241 a llo
gegonÛ, D. 34.12 tero ¢dh §n kaª oÉc ¾ aÉt»,19 Men. Dysc. 65 ter»
t© e«mì ntaÓqa, Georg. 105 oÉdeª gr e«mì [tero (cf. S. OT 1084–5 oÉk
n xlqoimì ti | pot ì llo), Pl. Trin. 160–1 uerbis paucis quam cito | alium
fecisti me: alius ad te ueneram. But lgein is normally constructed with Âti or
Þ (III.3, VIII.8, X.13, XV.7, XX.8, XXII.11, XXIII.3, XXV.2, 3; Goodwin
§753), not infin. (at XXIII.4 it means ‘order’); aÉt»n is unwelcome, when no
individual has yet been mentioned; and a remark of this kind does not lead very
naturally into the remarks which follow. kaª “Lgei autoÓ - g-” (Immisch
ap. Ilberg 1897) and [kaª] “Lgei <aÉt¼n> autoÓ - g-” (Edmonds 1908)
are no improvement. lgein (Needham), although it seems a pale duplicate of
täi toioÅtwi tr»pwi toÓ l»gou cr¦qai, might nevertheless be acceptable,
as an introduction to this new and rather different set of remarks.
“Kaª mn oÉ taÓta pr¼ m diexiei”: the connection of thought is uncer-
tain, because we do not know the sense of what precedes. kaª mn is perhaps
adversative, introducing an objection (Denniston 357–8, Blomqvist 66). The
combination is rare in T., and this instance is doubted by Müller (1874) 34. The
18 Foss appears to take this first as a statement (in his edition, 1858), later as a question
(1861 , 26).
19 Cf. Th. 2.61.2 gÜ mn ¾ aÉt» e«mi kaª oÉk x©tamai, E. Ph. 920 nr Âd ì oÉkq ì
aËt» (Valckenaer: aÉt» codd.)· kneÅei plin (Mastronarde ad loc., J. Gibert, Change
of Mind in Greek Tragedy (Göttingen 1995) 19–20).
178
I: THE DISSEMBLER
other attested instances are II.10 (d, wrongly), Piet. fr. 7.10 Pötscher (584A.106
Fortenbaugh); VIII.2 kaª mn . . . ge; Piet. fr. 20.13 Pötscher (531.13 Forten-
baugh) kaª mn <ka©>; fr. 152 Wimmer (523.7 Fortenbaugh) kaª mn ka©. In
negative expressions, kaª mn oÉ (Ar. Eq. 340, Pl. Ep. 319d, D. 8.60, Plb. 7.8.2,
9.36.12) is less common than kaª mn oÉ . . . ge or kaª mn oÉd or (what is reg-
ular in T.) oÉ mn ( . . . ge) (Müller 11 –12, Blomqvist 50–2). taÉt (Needham)
is perhaps more pointed than taÓta (cf. VIII.7 taÉt . . . lgein).
“ *llwi tinª lge”: cf. H. Il. 1.295–6 lloiin d taÓt ì pitlleo, m gr
mo© ge | main ì , Pl. R. 474d *llwi, e²pon, prepen, å GlaÅkwn, lgein
lgei, ‘Tell that to someone else . . . Do I look like a fool?’ (Muriel Spark,
in a short story ‘The Seraph and the Zambesi’), ‘Tell that to the marines’
(‘a colloquial expression of incredulity’, OED).
“ ëOp»teron d oª pitw £ ke©nou katagnä poroÓmai”: for the con-
struction, Isoc. 8.38 porä t© poiw, p»tera crwmai . . . £ kataiwpw
(with indic., e.g. Arist. EN 1168a 28 pore±tai . . . p»teron de± jile±n aut¼n
mlita £ llon tin). Sense calls for (¾)p»teron (¾p»teron/-a . . . ¢ Ar. Nu.
157–8, [Pl.] Erx. 396c, 399d, 405c; cf. Hdt. 5.119.2), not Âpw (AB), which
it is futile to change to Âpw d ì ¢ (Needham) or Âpw ¢ (Ussing). For d
introducing quoted speech (if, indeed, these are independent remarks and not
continuous speech), VI.9n., Denniston 172–3. katagignÛkein with gen. of
person, without acc. of charge, for which LSJ ii.4 cite only [Pl.] Demod. 382e,
is not uncommon (Th. 3.67.1, Antipho 4d.1, Isoc. 17.16, D. 19.212, 21.47 (law),
al., Aeschin. 1.79, 2.6, 3.214, Din. 1.48, [Arist.] Ath. 45.2, al., Hyp. Dem. fr. iii.7,
Plb. 1.23.5, al.).
“ ìAll ì Âra m Æ qtton piteÅei”: cf. [Pl.] Demod. 385c nqrÛpou
ti kathg»rei eÉqeian Âti tacw kaª to± tucoÓin nqrÛpoi lgoui
piteÅoi, Arist. Rh. 1356a 6–7 to± . . . pieiki piteÅomen mllon kaª qtton,
and the adj. tacupeiq. With Âra m, present indic. refers to present time
(LSJ m b.8b, KG 2.394–5), subj. to future time (LSJ b.8a, KG 2.392). piteÅei
(B) is more effective than piteÅhi (A) or -hi (ac). He implies that the other
has already given his trust prematurely. There is no call for p©teua (Cobet
1874).
[7] Epilogue
Features common to this and other epilogues are: moralising tone VI, VIII,
XXVII, XXIX; toioÓto III, VI (conj.), VIII, XXVI; ti with infin. II, X;
naming of character II, X; d III, VIII (also pr. 5, and u.l. in the spurious
XXX.10; for d in the genuine text, XX.3n.); ¢qh XXVII (also the spurious
VI.2); jultteqai de± III; proverb at end XXIX. For links between epilogues
and Preface, Introd. Note to pr.
179
COMMENTARY
plok: for the image, Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides 115. Add E. Ph.
494–5 periplok | l»gwn, Rh. 834 plkwn l»gou.
palillog©a: a technical term, defined as Åntomo nmnhi ‘concise
recapitulation’ (Anaximen. Lampsac. Rh. 20.1), equated with nad©plwi
and panlhyi, ‘duplication, repetition’ (Alex. Fig. p. 29 Spengel), glossed
as tautolog©a (Suda P 84, Hsch. P 178). Here the meaning is probably
‘repetitions’ (‘reprises’ Navarre), in reference to the preceding remarks, weak
though that is. At all events, probably not (unattested) ‘equivocation’ (LSJ),
‘retractions’ (Jebb), ‘discorsi contradittorii’ (Pasquali). This last sense would
reflect the usage illustrated by H. Il. 9.56 plin rei, S. Tr. 358 mpalin lgei.
But he contradicts neither himself nor others. kallilog©a (Foss 1834) is wrong:
he does not use fine or specious words. Contrast D.H. 8.32 kalliloge±te
kaª e«rwneÅeqe . . . Ànoma kal¼n rgwi periqnte no©wi. The spelling of
AB (pallil-) offers no support: the same corruption occurs in the mss. of
Suda P 84.
eËre±n ti toÓ erwno: this would most naturally be taken to mean ‘it is
characteristic of the dissembler to discover . . .’ (KG 1.373). But the analogy of
epilogues II and (especially) X suggests that it is designed to mean ‘one may
discover the dissembler’s . . .’. It is uncertain whether oÉ ce±ron Àn (AB) is a
corruption of toÓ erwno (Ussing) or of tän e«rÛnwn (Diels). The analogous
passages have both singular (II) and plural (X).
jultteqai mllon de± £ toÆ cei: cf. Hor. Carm. 1.8.9–10 sanguine uiperino
| cautius uitat, Epist. 1.17.30–1 cane peius et angui | uitabit, Sen. Con. 7.6.20 hanc (sc.
inuidiam) sapientes uiri uelut pestiferam <uiperam> (Otto, Sprichwörter 25) uitandam
esse praecipiunt.
180
II
T H E TOA DY
Introductory note
O. Ribbeck, Kolax. Eine ethologische Studie (ASG 21 (1884) 1 –114), remains funda-
mental. See also W. Kroll, ‘Kolax’, RE xi.1 (1921) 1069–70, H.-G. Nesselrath,
Lukians Parasitendialog (Berlin and New York 1985) esp. 88–121, Millett, ‘Patron-
age’ 30–7, D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge 1997) 98–103.
The etymology of the word is uncertain: Ribbeck 1 –8, Frisk 1.896, Chantraine
554.
K»lax is not adequately translated by ‘flatterer’. The word is more strongly
opprobrious. This is particularly clear in passages such as Pl. Phdr. 240b k»laki,
deinäi qhr©wi kaª blbhi meglhi, D. 18.46 k»lake kaª qeo± cqro©, 19.201
dwrod»ko, k»lax, ta± ra± noco, yeÅth, tän j©lwn prod»th; cf.
Dodds on Pl. Grg. 463b. A k»lax panders and toadies for his own advantage,
and not only with words. He often plays the role for which the name para-
site was later devised (§10n.). He is a stock character of comedy (the plays are
listed by Ribbeck 30–1 ; cf. PCG 5.381). He was discussed by philosophers: by
Theophrastus himself (in his Perª kolake©a, fr. 83 Wimmel, 547–8 Forten-
baugh; cf. Fortenbaugh, Quellen 115–18), by the Peripatetic Clearchus (fr. 19–21
Wehrli), and by Philodemus (T. Gargiulo, CErc 11 (1981) 103–27); and Plutarch
has an essay Pä n ti diakr©neie t¼n k»laka toÓ j©lou (48e–74e). J. Kayser,
‘Theophrast und Eustathius perª Ëpokr©ew’, Philologus 69 (1910) 327–58,
shows that Eustathius’ portrait of the Ëpokrit (De Simulatione, in T. L. F.
Tafel, Eustathii Opuscula (Frankfurt 1832) 88–98) is indebted to earlier descrip-
tions of the k»lax, but fails to prove a direct debt to the K»lax of Theophrastus,
let alone to a lost Theophrastan sketch of an Ëpokrit. Cf. N. G. Wilson,
Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 200–1, and the Introduction, p. 19.
Aristotle defines kolake©a in relation to a mean of jil©a (EN 1108a 26–30,
1127 a 6–11). The true j©lo is pleasant in the proper manner or degree (Þ de±
¡dÅ). The man who exceeds the mean of friendship/pleasantness is either
k»lax or reko: the k»lax acts out of self-interest (Ýjleia), the reko
has no ulterior motive (cf. Anaxandr. 43 t¼ gr kolakeÅein nÓn rkein Ànomì
cei). The man who falls short of the mean is quarrelsome and surly (dÅer©
ti kaª dÅkolo). Cf. EE 1221 a 7, 1233 b 30–4, MM 1193 a 20–7.
As usual, Theophrastus ascribes no explicit motive to the K»lax (Intro-
duction, p. 12 n. 39, Introd. Note to I ad fin.). The distinction which he makes
between the K»lax and the *reko (V) is of a different kind from that made by
Aristotle. The K»lax confines his flattery to a single patron, whom he attends
with a deference which borders on the servile (especially §3, §8, §11), while yet
181
COMMENTARY
displaying an artful self-advertisement (esp. §2 j ì aËtoÓ rxamnou, §4, the

first-person verbs in §3, §8). The *reko on the other hand does not confine
his attentions to a single individual but tries to please all. We may assume (for
it is not made explicit) that he merely wants to be popular. See the Introd.
Note to V.
[1 ] Definition
The definition is alluded to twice by Philodemus: (i) P. Herc. 222 col. xii.1 –3 (ed.
T. Gargiulo, CErc 11 (1981) 109) tn Ëp»]kriin tn toÓ jile±n [e«] [krdi]t ì
£ tn a«crn ¾mil©a[n umjr]ouan täi kolakeÅon[ti; (ii) P. Herc. 1082 col.
viii.4–6 (ed. C. Caini, Sui Papiri Ercolanesi 222, 223 e 1082 (Naples 1939)) tca
d kaª grjonta “tn d kolake©an Ëpolboi ti []n e²nai”. See also M.
Ihm, RhM 51 (1896) 315, E. Kondo, CErc 1 (1971 ) 87.
Ëpolboi: the verb is used thrice more in spurious passages (pr. 2, 3, epil.
II; cf. def. XVIII Ëp»lhyi), as well as I.6, XXIX.2 (and in a different sense
XXV.5).
¾mil©an: the noun recurs in def. XV, but not in the genuine text. Cf. [Pl.]
Def. 415e kolake©a ¾mil©a ¡ pr¼ ¡donn neu toÓ belt©tou (see def. V n.),
Arist. EN 1173 b 33–4 ¾ mn gr (sc. j©lo) pr¼ tgaq¼n ¾mile±n doke±, ¾ d
(sc. k»lax) pr¼ ¡donn, EE 1233 b 30–2 ¾ mn gr eÉcerä panta pr¼ t
piqum©a ¾milän k»lax, Pol. 1313 b 41 tapeinä ¾miloÓnte, Âper tªn rgon
kolake©a.
umjrouan d täi kolakeÅonti: the notion that the K»lax acts out of
self-interest, foreign to Theophrastus, is derived from Aristotle, cited in the
Introd. Note. See further Stein 66–8.
2 ¾ d k»lax toioÓt» ti o³o: I.2n. So in effect Darvaris (actually ¾ d

k- toioÓt» ti t©n o³o). Wilamowitz 1902b (almost certainly unaware of
Darvaris) silently prints the opening (without definition) as ëO k»lax toioÓt»
ti o³o. The transmitted opening t¼n d k»laka toioÓt»n tina ãte (AB)
continues the unique acc. and infin. construction of the definition. The genuine
opening has been changed to conform with that construction. This is the only
rational explanation. The alternative is to suppose that a spurious definition
has replaced a genuine definition which used the same construction. In that
case we have two anomalies: (i) 29 sketches beginning with ¾ d . . . toioÓt»
ti o³o or the like (I.2n.), this beginning with a different construction; (ii)
abandonment of the acc. construction when we reach the nom. participles (§3
lgwn etc.). If we restore the usual nominative phrase, it is shortsighted not to
replace ãte with o³o, even though toioÓto ãte is faultless in itself (Pl. Smp.
175d, Arist. EN 1114 a 3, D. 39.33). ãte (beyond suspicion at VII.3, 7) recurs
in three spurious passages (IV.4, XIX.4, XX.9).
182
I I : T H E TO A D Y
ma poreuomnwi e«pe±n: ‘to a person walking with him’, not ma poreu»-
menon (AB) or -o (Darvaris), ‘as he walks’. We expect to be told to whom
he is speaking, since a second-person address follows. Cf. §8 poreuomnou, sc.
aÉtoÓ. For the singular part. without article (when no specific person has been
mentioned), XI.7, XII.2, 4, 7, 8, XVI.14, XX.2; plural, VI.2–3n.
ìEnqum¦i Þ: cf. VIII.9 nqum¦i t¼ t¦ tÅch;. The verb refers not so much
to visual perception (‘observe’ Jebb, ‘notice’ Rusten) as to mental awareness;
with Þ (‘how’, followed by verb alone, rather than, as more commonly, adj.
or adverb) X. HG 6.3.12 nqumqhte Þ jluaroÓi, Eq.Mag. 8.20, Lys. 1.17,
Isoc. 12.223, 14.39, D. 40.39, Cratin.Iun. 1.1. There is no good reason to prefer
the spelling nqume± (Oxford, Barocci 194 (33 Wilson), acccording to Torraca
1974; coni. Herwerden, Cobet 1874). See Threatte 2.451 –2.
poblpoui pr¼ o¬ nqrwpoi: ‘look on you’, as opposed to ‘look
at you’. The latter is more naturally expressed with e« (as §10 e« ke±non
poblpwn). With pr», the acc. is regularly abstract (‘pay regard to some-
thing’), so that literal looking is precluded. When the acc. is personal, literal
looking is not precluded (e.g. Pl. Phd. 115c, LSJ i.1), but there is commonly
a further or alternative implication, ‘look on as a model’, ‘look on for help’,
‘look on with admiration’, of the look from an inferior or dependant towards
a superior: E. IT 928 t¼ d ì *rgo pr¼ nÓn poblpei, X. Mem. 4.2.2
pr¼ ke±non poblpein tn p»lin ¾p»te pouda©ou ndr¼ dehqe©h, 4.2.30
¾p»qen d cr rxaqai pikope±n aut»n, toÓto pr¼ poblpw e
moi qelai n xhgaqai, Oec. 17.2 pnte pou o¬ nqrwpoi pr¼ t¼n
qe¼n poblpouin ¾p»te brxa tn g¦n jei aÉtoÆ pe©rein, Pl. Alc.1
119e oÉ (sc. xion) pr¼ toÆ tän ntiplwn ¡gem»na poblpein e pote
ke©nwn belt©wn ggona, Ep. 320d Þ toÆ x ph t¦ o«koumnh . . .
e« na t»pon poblpein kaª n toÅtwi mlita pr¼ . Similarly, with a
clear note of admiration, D. 19.265 toÆ taÓta poioÓnta . . . pblepon,
zloun, t©mwn, ndra ¡goÓnto, Ar. Ec. 726 ¯n ì poblpwmai, E. Hec.
355 p»blepto. For the general idea cf. H. Od. 8.173 (the eloquent man)
rc»menon d ì n tu qe¼n â e«or»win.
toÓto d oÉqenª tän n t¦i p»lei g©gnetai pln £ o©: asyndeton (d om.
A) is less natural; d sometimes links items in reported speech (VI.9n.). A is
more prone to omission than B. A omits d at §6, §9, VIII.6 (other omissions, pr.
1, 5, IV.5, VII.3, VIII.9, 11, IX.7, XIV.12, XV.2). B omits d at XIV.1 (other
omissions, §10, IV.11, XV.10, and perhaps ¢ after pln).
We cannot tell whether T. wrote oÉqen© (B) or oÉden© (A). Attic inscriptions
attest only -d- before 378 bc, between 378 and c. 325 -d- and -q- equally, after
c. 325 (until the 1 st cent. bc) only -q-. See Threatte 1.472–6, 2.753, Arnott on
Alex. 15.5, id. ‘Orthographical variants’ 200–1. In I–XV B has -q- six times
(II.2, VII.2, VIII.3, 5, X.12, XV.9), -d- four (I.4, IV.2, 5, V.8), while A has -q-
only thrice (VIII.3, 5, XV.9). In XVI–XXX, V consistently has -d- (XVIII.4,
183
COMMENTARY
9, XXII.11, XXIII.3, XXIV.6, XXVI.2, XXVIII.4, XXIX.3). The papyrus

(1 st cent. bc) has -q- at VIII.3. I print -q- where it is attested, otherwise -d-, at
the cost of inconsistency.
g©n- (AB) is not attested in Attic inscriptions before 306/5 bc (Threatte
1.562–5, 2.770, Arnott on Alex. 37.7, id. ‘Orthographical variants’ 195–6).
pln ¢ is very uncommon in classical Greek: perhaps only Ar. Nu. 361, 734,
Hdt. 2.111.3, 130.2, 4.189.1, 6.5.3, Isoc. 12.258 (u.l. e«), Pl. Ap. 42a (u.ll. e«, d),
possibly [X.] Ath. 3.8 (Kalinka: e« codd.); LSJ pln b.ii.2, KG 2.285 Anmerk.
5, Schwyzer 2.543.20 pln (B) could be right, although accidental omission
of ¢ is more likely than interpolation. While A is sometimes guilty of addition
(VI.7 tn, 9 d, VII.9 n, VIII.11 ka©, XIV.2 ti), B is sometimes guilty of
omission (above on toÓto d).
<kaª> “HÉdok©mei cq n t¦i toi”: cf. VII.7 hÉdok©mhen n täi
dmwi, X. HG 1.1.31 n täi unedr©wi hÉd»xei. If hÉdok©mei ktl. is taken
as a continuation, without break, of the preceding speech, the asyndeton will
have to be explanatory. But ‘The esteem in which you are held was publicly
acknowledged in the stoa yesterday’ does not naturally explain why everyone
looks on him with admiration. If it is taken as a separate speech, a connecting
word is needed. Asyndeton would be unnatural, when the two speeches are
as unbalanced as these, the first consisting of two elements (question and
comment), the second very brief and followed by a long explanatory comment
(plei»nwn gr ktl.) outside the direct speech. The supplement we need is
<ka©>, not <¢> (Edmonds 1929), which is not elsewhere used by T. to connect
direct speech.
Here AB spell hÉdok©mei, but at VII.7 eÉdok©mhen. In fifth-century Attic,
verbs compounded with eÔ, no less than verbs in which eu- is part of the
stem, have augment and reduplication in hu- (D. J. Mastronarde, Glotta 67
(1989) 101 –5, Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations 133–5, Arnott on Alex. 9.2,
id. ‘Orthographical variants’ 198). Spellings in eu- appear in inscriptions by
the end of the fourth century (Threatte 1.384–5, 2.482–3, 486–7, 741). Since
scribes are prone to replace hu- with eu-, I attach more weight to the hu-
attested here than to the eu- attested at VII.7, as well as at XVII.5 (eÌrhka)
and XVII.9 (eÉergethmnon). See also XXI.11 hÉhmrei (eÉhmere±n V).
There were three main stoas in the agora: the Stoa Basileios, the Stoa of
Zeus Eleutherios, and the Stoa Poikile (Wycherley, Agora iii 21 –45, Thompson
and Wycherley, Agora xiv 82–103, J. J. Coulton, The Architectural Development of
the Greek Stoa (Oxford 1976) 219–22, Wycherley, Stones of Athens 30–2, 38–44,
J. M. Camp, The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Athens (London and
New York 1986) 53–7, 66–72, 100–7). Socrates conversed in the Stoa Basileios
20 pln <¢> (Wagner) is not acceptable at E. fr. 360.38 (TrGFSel p. 102) ap. Lycurg.
100.
184
(Euthphr. 2a) and the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios (Pl. Thg. 121 a, [Pl.] Erx. 392a,
X. Oec. 7.1, Aeschin.Socr. in P. Oxy. 2889).
plei»nwn gr £ trikonta nqrÛpwn kaqhmnwn: gr regularly intro-
duces an explanatory clause with infin. (IV.10n.), but only here after direct
speech. ugkaqhmnwn (Cobet 1874), as V.10, XXVIII.5, is needless: gossips
idly ‘sit’ (Ar. Eq. 1375–6 t meirkia . . . tn täi mÅrwi, | twmule±tai
toiadª kaqmena, Ec. 302 kaq¦nto laloÓnte | n to± tejanÛmain, Pl.
337–8 l»go . . . polÆ | pª to±i koure©oii tän kaqhmnwn, Eup. 194 p»ll ì
maqon n to±i koure©oi . . . | . . . kaq©zwn, Pherecr. 70.2–3 katekeuamnon
| undrion to± meirak©oi llale±n di ì ¡mra, Isoc. 7.15 pª . . . tän
rgathr©wn kaq©zonte kathgoroÓmen tän kaqetÛtwn, 18.9 kaq©zwn pª
to± rgathr©oi l»gou poie±to, Men. Sam. 510–12 ãte mhq[n e²]nai
mte koure±on ken»n, | m ton, k[aqh]mnou d pnta x wqinoÓ | perª
moÓ lal[e]±n). Of the three stoas mentioned above, we know that the Stoa of
Zeus Eleutherios had seats (Erx. 392b, X. Oec., Aeschin.Socr.)
kaª mpe»nto l»gou ti eh bltito: cf. Ar. Lys. 858–9 kn perª ndrän
g ì mphi | l»go ti, Pl. Prtg. 314c l»gou . . . Á ¡m±n kat tn ¾d¼n npeen,
R. 354b mpe»nto aÔ Ìteron l»gou, Lg. 799d t»pou . . . mpeptwk»to
l»gou perª n»mwn, Antid. 2.3 perª toÓ paraite±n e ti mpoi l»go, Lib.
Decl. 32.2 l»go . . . ti mpeÛn. The similarity of Plu. Caes. 63.7 mpe»nto
d l»gou po±o ra tän qantwn rito is (I assume) fortuitous (see p. 26
n. 77). There is a comparable expression l»gon mbllein, e.g. Men. Dysc.
352, Sam. 64 (S. L. Radt, Mnemosyne 25 (1972) 139 = Kleine Schriften (Leiden etc.
2002) 96).
j ì aËtoÓ rxamnou pnta: an idiomatic locution, which stresses the
importance of an individual in the larger group, without necessarily implying
that he acts first. So Pl. Grg. 471 c w tin Âti ìAqhna©wn p¼ oÓ rx-
meno (‘yourself included’ Dodds) dxait ì n ktl., R. 498c toÆ polloÆ . . .
p¼ Qraumcou rxamnou, Smp. 173d pnta ql©ou ¡ge±qai . . . p¼
autoÓ rxmeno, Ep. 317c d»kei d pin rxamnoi p¼ D©wno, X. HG
7.1.32 rxamnou p¼ ìAghilou . . . pnta kla©ein, Vect. 5.3 t©ne . . .
oÉ prodoint ì n aÉt¦ rxmenoi p¼ nauklrwn kaª mp»rwn;, D. 9.22
panta nqrÛpou j ì Ëmän rxamnou, 18.297 diajqarntwn pn-
twn rxamnwn p¼ oÓ, Men. Dysc. 32–4 p¼ toÅtwn rxmeno tän
geit»nwn . . . miän jex¦ pnta, Isoc. 8.104; KG 2.80–1, Wankel on D.
18.297. The K»lax, in declaring that all, himself included, are of one voice,
simultaneously flatters his patron and gives due prominence to himself. j ì
aËtoÓ was restored by Ribbeck 1870 before Cobet 1874. Those who retain
p ì aÉtoÓ (AB) miss the idiom and the point. ‘Everyone mentioned you first,
and ended by coming back to your name’ (Jebb). But katenecq¦nai does not
mean ‘come back to’, and it is idle to import this sense by conjecture (nenec-
q¦nai Hottinger, pnta <plin> Petersen).
185
COMMENTARY
pª t¼ Ànoma aÉtoÓ katenecq¦nai: they ‘arrived in the end’ at his name. For
the verb in this sense (LSJ iii, ‘to be brought to a point’, cite only later authors),
VII.3 e« pª t¼ aÉt¼ moª katenecqhi, Isoc. 8.101 pª tn teleutn taÅthn
kathncqhan, 13.19 pnte pª taÅthn katenecqontai tn Ëp»qein. It
appears to be a figurative application of a sense regular in Thucydides, of ships,
‘be brought to land’ by wind (1.137.2, 3.69.1, 4.26.7, 120.1, 6.2.3, 7.53.1, 71.6;
LSJ ii.2).
3 kaª ma toiaÓta lgwn: as language, kaª lla (AB) t- l- is unexceptionable

(Pl. Grg. 483e lla mur©a . . . toiaÓta lgein, Prtg. 348b, X. HG 2.4.42 e«pÜn . . .
taÓta kaª lla toiaÓta). And lla is not to be rejected because (Stein
154 n. 1) tero rather than llo stands with toioÓto in VII.3 and epil.
XXVI; for T. has lla toiaÓta elsewhere (e.g. HP 4.6.5). But lla draws
pointless attention to the incompleteness of the preceding samples of flattery.
ma (Schneider, not Needham) more pointedly stresses the simultaneity of
speech and action (cf. VII.7 ma dihgoÅmeno, XI.4 ma . . . prolalän).
The word order (ma, part., infin.) is the same as §10 (conj.), VII.7, IX.4,
XIX.5, XXIII.2 (alternative orders, V.5n. ad fin., XIX.4n.). taÓta (Foss 1858)
for toiaÓta is unnecessary.
p¼ toÓ ¬mat©ou jele±n krokÅda, kaª n ti pr¼ t¼ tr©cwma t¦
kejal¦ Ëp¼ pneÅmato proenecq¦i curon karjolog¦ai: he removes
(a) a flock of wool from the man’s cloak, (b) a speck of straw from his hair and
beard. For (a), Ar. fr. 689 † e ti kolakeÅei parÜn kaª t krokÅda jairän,
Hsch. K 4176 krokulegm» · t¼ kolakeutikä t krokÅda polgein tän
¬mat©wn, Plu. Su. 35.7 (an admirer) krokÅda toÓ ¬mat©ou paa. For (b),
Ar. Eq. 908 gÜ d t poli g oÉklgwn non poiw, fr. 416 dace±
gr aÉtoÓ t¼n cor ì klgei t ì eª | k toÓ gene©ou t poli † toÓ Di» † .
For both (a) and (b), Phryn. PS p. 4.14–17 de Borries jaire±n krokÅda · l©an
tt©kitai kaª t©qetai pª tän pnta poioÅntwn di kolake©an, ãte kaª
parepomnou jaire±n krokÅda t¦ q¦to £ krjo ti t¦ kejal¦ £
toÓ gene©ou. But (b) is not straightforward, in so far as the speck of straw has
fallen on the man’s hair (t¼ tr©cwma t¦ kejal¦), and yet the K»lax jokes
that he appears to have white hair in his beard. This leaves us to infer (what is
not explicitly stated) that specks of straw have also fallen onto his beard. If this
is troublesome, deletion of t¦ kejal¦ (Herwerden before Edmonds 1929)
will allow t¼ tr©cwma to refer to the beard (cf. A. Th. 666). karjolog¦ai
<kaª klgein k toÓ gene©ou t poli> (Stein) is too repetitive.
curon is ‘straw’ rather than ‘chaff’ (Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca
56–9). For the word order n ti . . . curon, with enclitic ti early in its
clause (Wackernagel’s Law), Diggle, Euripidea 170, Eikasmos 9 (1998) 42–4.
ëOri; Âti duo±n oi ¡merän oÉk ntetÅchka: for ¾ri;, Diggle, Studies
on the Text of Euripides 12; Âti, XXIII.9n. We cannot tell whether T. preferred
186
duo±n (B) or due±n (A). duo±n is universal in Attic inscriptions before c. 330 bc,
thereafter due±n (Meisterhans 157, Threatte 2.415–16). The evidence of mss.
counts for nothing: they regularly impute due±n to fifth-century authors.
ka©per e ti kaª llo cwn pr¼ t th mlainan tn tr©ca: ka©per . . .
cei (AB) is a construction probably unparalleled in classical Greek. LSJ cite
only Pi. N. 4.36 ka©per cei (ke« percei W. B. Henry)21 and Pl. Smp. 219c ([kai]
peri P. Oxy. 843, rightly). Blomqvist 47–8 cites three instances in Polybius
(2.59.5, 4.30.2, 12.14.2). F. Scheidweiler, Hermes 83 (1955) 220–30, cites some
later examples. Cf. Schwyzer 2.688 n. 2, Denniston 486. The alternative to
cwn (Herwerden, anticipated by a corrector in Par. gr. 2986 (45 Wilson))22 is
ka©toi . . . cei (Herwerden before Blaydes); for ka©toi in T., Müller (1874)
65–6, Blomqvist 35–45.
e ti kaª llo: Hdt. 3.2.2, 9.27.5, Th. 1.70.1, Ar. Nu. 356, Pl. Phd. 58e, 66a
(om. pars codd.), X. An. 1.4.15, Cyr. 3.3.42, 5.1.6, Mem. 3.6.2, Smp. 2.6, Hyp.
Eux. 21 (the order e« ka© ti llo Men. Asp. 18); without ka©, S. OT 1118, E.
Andr. 6, Ar. Ec. 81, Pl. 655, Pl. Phd. 63c, La. 179b, Smp. 212a, Prt. 352c, R. 501 d,
Men. Sam. 300, Call. Del. 164, fr. 226.
pr» ‘in proportion or relation to’: LSJ c.iii.4. There is no call for par
(Nauck 1850; LSJ c.i.7).
There is nothing to choose between the variant word orders (c- pr¼ t
th B, pr¼ t th c- A). Possibly the variation points to a more sophisti-
cated order pr¼ t th mlainan c- tn tr©ca (c- omitted, written above
the line or in the margin, then restored in different places), comparable to
preceding poliän chka t¼n pÛgwna met»n, III.3 ponhr»tero© e«in o¬
nÓn nqrwpoi, . . . xioi geg»nain o¬ puro©, . . . polloª pidhmoÓi xnoi
(on the other hand, V.6 toÆ ½d»nta leukoÆ cein; and for an alternative
order, XXX.8n.). There are further variations in order between A and B at
§7, III.4, VI.5, def. IX, IX.3, XI.3, XXX.7, 9. I suggest similar transpositions
at §7, IX.3, XXX.7, 9.
4 kaª lgonto d aÉtoÓ ti toÆ llou iwpn keleÓai kaª painai

d koÅonta: ‘He praises him in his hearing’ (cf. §6 ¾ränto aÉtoÓ ‘in his
sight’). Not koÅonto (AB), since a gen. absolute balancing lgonto (the two
participles standing in chiasmus at the beginning and end of their respective
phrases) would suggest ‘when he is listening’ as opposed to when he is speaking.
So the sense would be: when the man is speaking the K»lax tells the company
to be quiet and listen to him, and when he is listening (not speaking) the K»lax
takes the opportunity to sing his praises. But the next clause (‘when he pauses,
21 In ‘A Commentary on selected Nemean Odes of Pindar’ (Oxford D.Phil. thesis 2001).
This conjecture is preferable to ka« percei (Ahrens), kaper cei (Christ), keper cei
(Bergk).
22 Stefanis (1994a) 100 (who confirms to me that what is suprascribed is wn).
187
COMMENTARY
he adds an approving “Well said”’) shows that the man has never stopped
speaking, and so cannot be described as a listener as opposed to a speaker. With
the acc., he does not stop speaking but hears himself praised as he speaks. The
K»lax, by insisting that the rest of the company keep silent, simultaneously
flatters the speaker and enables his own words of praise to be heard. koÅonta
(proposed alongside koÅonta by Casaubon)23 cannot be right, whether taken
as subject of painai (‘ut iubeat auditores aures suas commodare recitatori,
& tacite eum laudare’ Casaubon) or as object (‘praise the company for listening
to him’ Edmonds). The former is against the run of the words (kaª painai
d, like kaª pihmnaqai d, must be coordinate with keleÓai, not with
iwpn). The latter is faulty sense: to praise the man himself is apt, to praise
the company for listening to him is not. idonto (Reiske 1747, 1749 (Briefe
359), 1757),24 suggested by Plu. 531 c mte lgonto paine±n par gnÛmhn
mt ì idonto krote±n mte kÛptonto juä pigelai, is maladroit:
“ ìOrqä” is a comment on speech, not on song. Deletion of ½rqä (Cobet
1874) is a reckless evasion. There are worse conjectures: koutä Darvaris,
aÉloÓnto Eberhard 1865, di kr»tou() Blümner; kaª . . . koÅonto post
katenecq¦nai (§2) trai. Meier 1850/1, post ¾ränto aÉtoÓ (§6) Foss 1858 (cf.
Foss 1861 , 27), post ½rqä Ribbeck 1870, del. Ussing. For the general picture,
Eup. 172.9–10 kn ti tÅchi lgwn ¾ ploÅtax, pnu toÓt ì painä, | kaª
kataplttomai dokän to±i l»goii ca©rein, Ter. Eu. 251 –3 quidquid dicunt
laudo; id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque; | negat quis: nego; ait: aio; postremo imperaui
egomet mihi | omnia adsentari.
kaª pihmnaqai d, pn paÅhtai, “ ìOrqä”: ‘He seals his approval
with . . . “Well said”.’ Cf. Men. Sic. 244–5 nkragon | “ ìOrqä ge” pnte
(cf. 257), Ter. Eu. 773 ‘recte’, Hor. Ars 428 clamabit enim ‘pulchre, bene, recte’. For
these conversational adverbs of approval, Brink on Hor. loc. cit., Arnott on Alex.
132.3. The verb is wrongly classed by LSJ: not (iv.2) ‘remark’ but (iv.3) ‘set
one’s name and seal to a thing (in token of approbation)’, like Isoc. 12.2 («deän)
toÆ koÅonta pihma©neqai kaª qorube±n nagkazouän, Aeschin. 2.49
pihmain»menon . . . kaª podedegmnon toÆ par ì moÓ l»gou, Str. 13.2.4
t¼n t¦ jrew aÉtoÓ z¦lon pihmain»meno (Introduction, p. 1 n. 2).
e« paÅetai (AB) is an impossible future; and e« paÅetai (Ast), present indic.
in a general condition (Goodwin §467, LSJ e« b.i.1.b), is unwelcome. Since
the sequence is primary (a leading aorist infinitive does not introduce historic
sequence), there is no place here for an optative (e« paÅaito Reiske 1757, peª
23 Casaubon actually proposed koÅonta(), and yet a further conjecture konta, in
place not of koÅonto but of konto (d), the only reading then known. koÅonta
is cited from Par. supp. gr. 450 (46 Wilson) by Torraca 1974. Stefanis tells me that the
only other ms. which has it is its relative Ambr. E 119 sup. (21 Wilson).
24 Also Klotz 1761 ; and a correction in Darmstadt 2773 (5 Wilson) according to Stefanis
(1994a) 100 n. 73.
188
paÅaito Schneider). With a conditional clause, the expected construction

is n (or n) paÅhtai. So in effect Ast, who wrote £n paÅhtai (after e«
paÅhtai C. Gesner). For n, §3, IV.11 (conj.), IX.4, X.7, XVI.3, 4 bis, 6 bis,
12, XX.10, XXIX.2, 4; n VII.2 bis, VIII.7, XVII.7, XVIII.4, 7, XXIX.5; kn
III.3, XVI.8, 14, XXVI.2, XXVII.5. But a temporal clause is more natural.
For pn (LSJ is inadequate), XVI.4 (conj.), XXIV.10, HP 4.8.11, 5.7.2, fr.
174.7 Wimmer (359a.51 Fortenbaugh), X. HG 1.1.29, al., [Arist.] Ath. 42.4,
56.1, al., D. 2.21 ; cf. Müller (1874) 63. For the expression itself, Hdt. 4.111.2
pen . . . paÅwntai, HP 3.8.7 Âtan paÅhtai, and XI.3n. Lipography
(virtual haplography, <pn> paÅhtai) may be the root of the corruption.
kaª kÛyanti yucrä pigelai: cf. Macho 235–6 (flatterers or para-
sites) tän pigeln e«qimnwn | panta to± trjouin a«eª pr¼ crin,
Ar. Th. 979–81 pigelai proqÅmw | ta± ¡metraii | carnta core©ai
(the datives should be taken equally with the infin. and with pr¼ crin /
carnta). There is no need for kÛyanto (Navarre 1920), prompted by Plu.
531 c kÛptonto juä pigelai (above on kaª lgonto ktl.). yucr»
as a term of stylistic criticism (‘frigid’,’ bathetic’, ‘strained’, ‘tasteless’) covers
various types of ineptitude in language or thought (LSJ ii.4, N. Zink, Griechische
Ausdrucksweisen für Warm und Kalt (Mainz 1962) 70, Russell on [Longin.] 4.1,
Wankel on D. 18.256, Arnott on Alex. 184.3, Olson on Ar. Ach. 138–40), such
as a joke (Eup. 261.2–3 t¼ kämì elg . . . kaª j»dra | yucr»n) or pun
(Timocl. 19.6, S Ar. V. 772b, S E. Tr. 14). Another type is defined by T. himself:
Demetr. Eloc. 114 ¾r©zetai d t¼ yucr¼n Qe»jrato (fr. 94 Wimmer, 686
Fortenbaugh) oÌtw · yucr»n ti t¼ Ëperbllon tn o«ke©an paggel©an,
o³on “pundkwto oÉ trapezoÓtai kÅlix” (S. fr. 611), ntª toÓ “pÅq-
meno pª trapzh kÅlix oÉ t©qetai”. t¼ gr prgma mikr¼n ¿n oÉ dcetai
Àgkon tooÓton lxew. Sycophantic laughter: Antiph. 80.9 n kÛpthi,
geli, 142.7–9, Ter. Eu. 250, 426, 497, Juv. 3.100–1, Plu. 54c, 531 c (above),
Hegesand. ap. Ath. 249e, Ammian. AP 9. 573.4.
t» te ¬mtion åai e« t¼ t»ma: single connective te (Denniston 497–503)
occurs only here in this work, though T. occasionally has it elsewhere (Müller
(1874) 36). te . . . ka© XIII.10 (def. VI n.).
Þ d oÉ dunmeno katace±n t¼n glwta: cf. Pl. Phdr. 228c Þ d oÉk
piqumän, Thg. 123a Þ d oÉk e«dÛ. With a participle Þ d is ‘almost always
ironical, sceptical, or indignant in tone’ (Denniston 230). Cf. XX.3n.
5 kaª toÆ pantänta pit¦nai keleÓai w n aÉt¼ parlqhi: aÉt»

is ‘the man himself’, ‘the master’, as Ar. Nu. 219, Th. 66, fr. 279, Pl. Prt. 314d,
Men. Sam. 256, 258, Theoc. 24.50 (LSJ i.1).
6 kaª to± paid©oi m¦la kaª p©ou primeno e«engka doÓnai ¾ränto
aÉtoÓ: the *reko too exploits his host’s chidren (V.5n. init.).
189
COMMENTARY
m¦la kaª p©ou is a natural pairing (e.g. CP 6.16.2 pioi kaª m¦la, Her-
mipp. 63.17 (Pellegrino 219–20), Matro 1.112, Eub. 74.3, Lib. Decl. 32.24).
m¦lon in this context may be translated as apple, though it embraces other
tree-fruits (Olson and Sens on Matro loc. cit.). pio is the cultivated pear,
as opposed to cr the wild pear (Gow on Theoc. 7.120, Arnott on Alex.
34.2–3, Olson and Sens ibid.).
kaª jila d e«pe±n “CrhtoÓ patr¼ ne»ttia”: cf. Ar. Au. 767 toÓ
patr¼ ne»ttion. This combines the cosy image of children as fledgelings,
under the parental wing (Bond on E. Herc. 71 –2), with the idea that birds
produce young identical to themselves (Eup. 111.2 ¾mo©ou toÆ neottoÆ täi
patr©; cf. on V.5 Åkou ¾moi»tera . . . täi patr©). Addition of crhtoÓ
gauchely directs the focus towards the father. The gaucherie is deliberate:
deletion of crhtoÓ or addition of <crht> before crhtoÓ (Groeneboom)
misses the point. Comparable imagery: Ar. Pl. 1011 nhttrion n kaª jttion
Ëpekor©zeto, Men. fr. 652, Juv. 5.142–3 (the legacy-hunter) loquaci | gaudebit
nido, Shakespeare, Macbeth IV.iii.218 ‘all my pretty chickens’. For the accent
(ne»ttia A, not neott©a B), H. W. Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek
Accentuation (Oxford 2 1881) §341, W. Petersen, Greek Diminutives in -ION (Weimar
1910) 10–14. On kissing children, W. Kroll, ‘Kuß’, RE Suppl. v (1931) 514,
G. Binder, ‘Kuss’, DNP 6 (1999) 942.
7 kaª unwnoÅmeno ì Ijikrat©da: ‘Iphicratids’ are shoes named after Iphi-

crates, a celebrated Athenian general in the first half of the fourth century, son
of a cobbler (O. Lau, Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in der griechisch-römischen Liter-
atur und Kunst (Bonn 1967) 136, 177). Light and easily untied, they were designed
for military wear (D.S. 15.44.4 t te Ëpodei to± tratiÛtai eÉlÅtou
kaª koÅja po©he, t mcri toÓ nÓn ì Ijikrat©da p ì ke©nou kaloumna),
but became more widely fashionable (S Luc. 80 (DMeretr.) 14.2 t ikuÛnia
Ëpodmata diejronto par to± palaio± Þ kaª a¬ ì Ijikrat©de krhp±de,
p¼ ì Ijikrtou polln jilokal©an perª tn Ëp»dein pidedeigmnou, Alci-
phr. 3.21.1 –2 ì Ijikrat©da moi neourge± pemye täi Dr»mwni doÆ kom©zein·
¾ d pª taÅtai brenqÅeto, Damasc. Isid. fr. 89 (p. 130 Zintzen) Ëpeddeto d ì
oÕto paniki, £ t ìAttik ì Ijikrat©da £ t unqh andlia peri-
dedemno, Procl. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 321 b Bekker (= A. Severyns, Recherches sur
la Chrestomathie de Proclos. Première partie. Le Codex 239 de Photius (Paris 1938) 2.54;
Severyns’ text is reproduced by R. Henry, Photius, Bibliothèque 5 (Budé ed. 1967)
164) = S Clem.Al. Protr. p. 299 Stählin (the dajnhj»ro in a Boeotian cult)
t mn k»ma kaqeimno, cruoÓn d tjanon jrwn kaª lamprn q¦ta
podrh tolimno ì Ijikrat©da (M, S: pikrat©da A) te Ëpodedemno).
In this last passage (on which see Severyns 2.218–32, A. Schachter, Cults of Boio-
tia 1 (BICS Suppl. 38.1, 1981) 83–5 (84 n. 6 for the point at issue), Burkert, Greek
Religion 100) the variant pikrat©da has recently found undeserved favour
190
(Severyns 1.222–3, with tendentious reasoning). This word recurs in Phot. I 277
Theodoridis ì Ijikrat©de · a¬ pikrat©de · ti d e²do Ëpodmato, where
Theodoridis suggests that it should be replaced with pikrhp±de, citing our
passage in support. But a¬ pikrat©de looks like a corruption masquerading
as a gloss, and I should delete it. It is absent from the similar definitions in Suda
I 770 ì Ijikrat©de · e²do Ëpodmato, Hsch. I 1123 ì Ijikrat©de (ijikrathre
cod.)· Ëpodmato e²do. The word also turns up in a late Latin-Greek glos-
sary (G. Goetz, Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum 2 (Leipzig 1888) 185.28), ‘socci
epikratide’, with u.ll. «ji- and Ëyi-, of which the former may be right. LSJ
cites the word in a different sense, ‘a kind of head-dress . . . or towel’, from Hp.
Praec. 10 (9.266 Littré) jeukth . . . qrÅyi (Triller: tr©yi codd.) pikrat©dwn
( ì Ijikrat©dwn Kühn ap. Littré), an inscrutable passage (cf. W. H. S. Jones,
Hippocrates 1 (Loeb ed. 1923) 326). Add Tzetz. on Ar. Nu. 102 (p. 379.2 Koster),
singular pikrat©, ‘headgear’. Cf. Hsch. E 4896 pikrat©dion· thmonik¼n
klumma cri (Latte: cwri cod.) t¦ kejal¦. In our passage ì Ijikrat©da (a
bold and brilliant conjecture) was perhaps corrupted to pikrhp±da by way
of pikrat©da.
Neither pikrhp±da (A) nor pª krhp±da (B) is acceptable. LSJ translates
pikrhp±da (not elsewhere attested) as ‘goloshes’, Wilamowitz ‘Überschuhe’.
This is based on Wachsmuth (ap. Ilberg), who suggested a type of krhp© with a
more than usually elaborate upper part, comparing ½piqokrhp©, mentioned
by Poll. 7.91, 94, Hsch. O 1014. The style of the ½piqokrhp© (a woman’s
shoe, according to Poll. 7.94) can only be conjectured: ‘Schuh, der hinten
an der Hacke heraufgeht’ (Wachsmuth), ‘Schuhe mit breitem Fersenschutz’
(M. Bieber, ‘Krepis’, RE xi.2 (1922) 1711 –14, at 1712). There is no place here
for goloshes and overshoes. To describe a foot as shapelier than these is no
compliment. pª krhp±da might be translated ‘for shoes’, if it were linked
with a verb of motion (as Ar. Ec. 819 cÛroun e« gorn p ì ljita; LSJ p©
c.iii.1). But it cannot have that meaning when linked with unwnoÅmeno: not
‘accompagnando a comprare le scarpe’ (Pasquali (1919) 17–18 = (1986) 91 –2,
vainly adducing, for lack of a verb of motion, X.2 paite±n † pª tn o«k©an† ).
unwnoÅmeno pª krhp±da <lqÛn> (Foss 1858), in which unwnoÅmeno
has to be taken as an introductory scene-setting part. (VII.8n.), ‘while jointly
shopping’, creates a ponderous expression. pª krhp±da cannot mean ‘to the
shoe-shop’. When the name of saleable goods stands for the place where they
are sold the noun always has an article: XI.4 proelqÜn pr¼ t krua £ t
mÅrta £ t kr»drua, Ar. Eq. 1375, Nu. 1065, V. 789, Au. 13, 1288, Lys. 557, Th.
448, Ra. 1068, Ec. 302, etc.; law of 375/4 (SEG xxvi (1976–7) no. 72.18–23; cf.
IV.10n.) n täi ©twi; Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen 2.463–4, Wycherley, ‘Market
of Athens’ 5–8 (∼ Stones of Athens 93–4), Kassel and Austin on Ar. fr. 258 and Eup.
327, Arnott on Alex. 47.8. So we should need pª <t> kr- (Fischer), as well
as a verb of motion. Similarly, pª krhp©dwn (Diels) ‘at the shoe-shop’ calls for
191
COMMENTARY
<tän>. Other proposals: d for pª (ed. Basil.a before Fischer), pª del. Ussing,
ti Needham (ti after e²nai Petersen), pª <piug©ou> Edmonds 1929. But
no conjecture which retains krhp±da is probable, since the compliment, once
again, would be maladroit. For krhp±de are mere soles, attached to the foot
by laces, and sometimes studded with nails (IV.12n.), the footwear primarily
of soldiers and travellers (Gow on Macho 13ff., Lau (above) 121 –3; illustration
in Daremberg-Saglio i.2 (1887) 1557–60, K. D. Morrow, Greek Footwear and the
Dating of Sculpture (Madison 1985), Index s.u. ‘Krepides’). The claim that they
were ‘a fine, well-fitting, close-shaped boot’ (A. A. Bryant, ‘Greek shoes in the
classical period’, HSCPh 10 (1899) 57–102, at 85), ‘gutsitzende Art der Sandale’
(Bieber 1711), is based not on any independent evidence but on a perception
of the type of shoe which our passage requires.
t¼n p»da j¦ai e²nai eÉruqm»teron toÓ Ëpodmato: cf. Alciphr. 4.12.3
¡l©koi . . . o¬ p»de, Þ plate±, Þ rruqmoi, Hp. Art. 62 (2.214.1 –2
Kühlewein) Ëpodhmtion . . . o³on a¬ C±ai çuqm¼n con (çuqm» ‘shape’; Arnott
on Alex. 60.4). Contrast IV.2. Possibly the alternative word orders (j¦ai e²nai
B, e²nai j¦ai A; §3n.) point to an original j¦ai eÉruqm»teron e²nai toÓ
Ëpodmato, comparable (for acc. interposed between j¦ai and e²nai) to
V.5 j¦ai Åkou ¾moi»tera e²nai, XIX.2 j¦ai taÓta e²nai, XXIII.9 j¦ai
taÅthn e²nai, XXIX.5 j¦ai aÉt¼n kÅna e²nai, XXX.4 j¦ai d©kaion e²nai,
and (for verb interposed between eÉruqm»teron and Ëpodmato) to III.3
ponhr»tero© e«in . . . tän rca©wn, V.4 dikai»tera lgoui tän politän.
8 kaª poreuomnou pr» tina tän j©lwn prodramÜn e«pe±n Âti “Pr¼
rcetai”: cf. XXIV.10 kaª proapotllein d, pn poreÅhtai, t¼n roÓnta
Âti prorcetai, Ter. Ph. 777 abi prae, nuntia hanc uenturam, Plin. Ep. 1.5.9 nuntius
a Spurinna: ‘Venio ad te.’
Âti regularly introduces direct speech: LSJ ii.1, KG 2.366–7, Goodwin §711,
E. H. Spieker, AJPh 5 (1884) 221 –7.
kaª natrya Âti “Proggelk e”: ‘I have announced you in advance’.
This, not proggelka (d), must replace proggelka (AB). proggelka
is not adequately supported by Philod. Vit. col. ix.30–1 proaggllein oÉ
qlonte (servants who will not announce to the master of the house that
someone has arrived), Luc. DDeor. 12.1 proggeilon aÉtäi (spoken by the
new arrival to the servant, ‘take him a message to say that I have arrived’).
In these the verb is used like e«aggllein in Hdt. 3.118.2 dika©ou oÉdna o¬
agge±lai (‘he refused to allow anyone to take an announcement of his arrival
inside to him’), Pl. Prtg. 314e e«ggeilon oÔn. The right prefix is pro- (cf. pre-
ceding prodramÛn, likewise corrupted to pro- in A). The reverse corruption
(pro- to pro-) occurs at pr. 3, VII.7, XI.9, XXIV.10, XXVI.2, XXX.19. The
mss. are divided between proagge±lai and pro- at X. Cyr. 5.3.12. See also
VIII.10n., XI.9n., XXIII.7n. This verb is used with impersonal noun (fr. 174.7
192
Wimmer (359A.51 –2 Fortenbaugh) tn jqorn aÉtän pronooÓi kaª proag-

gllouin, Th. 7.65.1 prohgglqh . . . ¡ pibol; cf. 1.137.4 proggelin
t¦ nacwrew), with object clause (X. Cyr. 3.3.34, 5.3.12) or absolutely (D.
19.35). Here it calls for an object: -k e. Several editors have attributed this to
e, probably misled by Ribbeck (1884) 112, who suggested that proggelka
reflects an original -k e, but did not say whether he believed that -k e is
right (he probably did not, since he printed -ka).
9 [mlei d kaª t k gunaike©a gor diakon¦ai dunat¼ pneut©]: it

is intolerable not to be told how his breathless activities in the women’s market
serve the man he is flattering. Possibly an explanation has been lost (Ilberg) or
the passage has been deliberately abbreviated (Diels). As it stands, the sentence
disrupts the structure (we do not want a new construction with dunat») and
is best deleted.
mlei ‘never mind’, ‘don’t worry’, ‘rest assured’, frequent in comedy and
dialogue, serves as a word of general emphasis or asseveration. Its distribution
(in verse, only comedy; in classical prose, absent from the historians and orators)
proves it colloquial. In Aristophanes it usually stands at the head of the sentence
and is followed by a verb (Ach. 368 mlei m t¼n D© ì oÉk napidÛomai, Eq.
1213 kmlei krine± kalä, Nu. 877 mlei d©dake, 1111, Lys. 164, 842, 935,
Ec. 800), once stands in mid-sentence at the head of the main clause (Nu. 422),
twice stands first and alone with an adverb (Nu. 488, Ra. 532 mlei kalä),
once is parenthetic (Lys. 172 ¡me± mlei oi t ge par ì ¡m±n pe©omen). It
is parenthetic or postponed in Men. Asp. 388 xei tin ì mlei diatribn oÉk
rruqmon, DE 107 ndon gr mlei, M»ce, Mis. 91 –2 ll o[i] | t¼ mikr¼n
mle[i] toÓ tratiwtikoÓ [blbh, Sam. 223 g©net ì mlei pnq ì to©mw,
371 lein¼n mlei t¼ dkruon, Eup. 222.1. Cf. Dromo 1.3, Nicostr.Com. 9.3,
Philippid. 9.9. In dialogue it normally opens a speech, as first word (Pl. Phd.
82a ìAmlei, jh ¾ Kbh, e« t toiaÓta, R. 422c, 450a, 539e, X. Cyr. 5.2.13,
8.3.4, Mem. 1.4.7, 4.4.7, D. 52.11), but is once postponed (Pl. R. 500a Kaª gÜ
mlei, jh, uno©omai), and once introduces a main clause in mid-speech (Pl.
Hp.Ma. 295b kaª n mn nÓn eÌrwmen, mlei oÉk ½clhr¼ omai). Elsewhere
in T., CP 2.11.1 janer¼n d mlei, 5.1.3 o³on mlei, 6.14.6 ãper mlei (cf.
[Arist.] Mu. 396b 9, 398b 14, 400b 13). Initial mlei d ka© is true to T.’s usage
(VI.9n., XXVI.3n.); but mlei is a word which interpolators too found handy
(V.2, VI.3, definitions XIII, XVI, XVIII, XXV). See also Blomqvist 103–7.
The gunaike©a gor is mentioned only twice elsewhere. (i) The
ìAneleÅqero (XXII.10) hires a girl k t¦ gunaike©a (sc. gor) to accom-
pany his wife when she goes out of doors. (ii) Poll. 10.18 kaª mn e« gunaike©an
gorn t¼n t»pon oÕ t keÅh t toiaÓta piprkouin qloi kale±n,
eÌroi n n ta± unaritÛai Menndrou (fr. 344) t¼ Ànoma (= Wycherley,
Agora iii no. 613; cf. nos. 667–8). The place to which Pollux refers is the place to
193
COMMENTARY
which he referred at the beginning of this section, called kÅkloi or kÅklo, the
area where slaves were sold (Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen 2.461 –2, Wycherley,
‘Market of Athens’ 9–10 ∼ Stones of Athens 95–6, id. Agora iii nos. 618–21, Kassel
and Austin on Diph. 55.3, Arnott on Alex. 104). Pollux’s inference that keÅh
(‘utensils’) were sold there may be based (as Arnott suggests) on a misreading
of Diph. 55, where kÅklo (‘ring of slaves’) is mentioned after a list of keÅh. It
is possible, then, that the gunaike©a gor was the place where female slaves
were bought or hired. Such an interpretation is at least compatible with both
Poll. and XXII.10. Lane Fox 143–4 reaches the same conclusion, with a differ-
ent argument; but his inference about the present passage (since he treats it as
genuine) is unsafe. Other possibilities remain: a market which sold goods for
women (Wycherley, ‘Market of Athens’ 7 ∼ Stones of Athens 94; also P. Herfst,
Le travail de la femme dans la Grèce ancienne (Utrecht 1922) 36–40, R. Brock, CQ 44
(1994) 342) or goods made by women (Wycherley ibid., id. Agora iii 201 ; also W.
Judeich, Topographie von Athen (Munich 2 1931) 360). At any rate, not a market
where women shopped, since women did not normally do their own shopping.
There is no need for k <t¦> (a, Casaubon); IV.2n.
dunat» reappears elsewhere (again with mlei) only in the spurious VI.3.
10 kaª tän tiwmnwn präto painai t¼n o²non: here he appears in the
guise of parito, a role first attested for him in the K»lake of Eupolis (421
bc; fr. 172 for his own account of his role). See XX.10n., Nesselrath (Introd.
Note), id. ‘Parasit’, DNP 9 (2000) 325–6, Arnott, Alexis 336–7, 542–5, 731,
P. G. McC. Brown, ZPE 92 (1992) 98–107, C. Damon, The Mask of the Parasite:
A Pathology of Roman Patronage (Ann Arbor 1997) 11 –14, N. Fisher in D. Harvey
and J. Wilkins (edd.), The Rivals of Aristophanes (London and Swansea 2000)
371 –8.
kaª parakeimnwi e«pe±n: he addresses the man he is flattering (now his
host), not a fellow-guest, since the host is the object of his questions in the
second part of this sentence. He sits next to his host, like the Mikrojil»timo,
who is eager pª de±pnon klhqeª par ì aÉt¼n t¼n kalanta katake©meno
deipn¦ai (XXI.2). The expression par ì aÉt¼n . . . katake©meno in that
passage (cf. Men. Epit. 434–5 katake±qai . . . par ì aËt»n, and parakaqez»-
meno III.2, parakaq¦qai XIV.2, XXIV.6, XXV.2, 5, XXVI.4) commends
parakeimnwi (-wn c) for paramnwn (AB) here. parakeimnwi was proposed by
Gronovius (Observationum Libri Tres (Leiden 2 1662) 556); <täi> parakeimnwi,
which has been wrongly imputed to him, would signify fellow-guest, not host.
The bare participle (sc. aÉtäi) is like §4 kÛyanti, §8 poreuomnou. Alter-
natively paraklinomnwi (LSJ kl©nw ii.4, katakl©nw i; cf. X. Cyr. 2.2.28
Åndeipnon kaª parakl©thn). But not parhmnwi (Nauck), a poetic verb, nor
parake©meno (reported by Needham from Oxford, Barocci 194 (33 Wilson),
wrongly – I have checked), since we need a reference to the person addressed.
194
paramnwn (AB) gives no adequate sense, whether taken literally, ‘remaining

beside him’, sc. when the others have left (Reiske 1750 (Briefe 408), 1757), since
the sequel shows that they are not alone, or taken figuratively, ‘standing fast’,
‘steadfastly’ (e.g. ‘(in laudando) perseverans’ Pauw, ‘he . . . keeps it up by say-
ing’ Rusten). There are many other proposals: “Parmnwn” Bernhard 1750 (ap.
Reiske (1783) 399), parate©nwn Darvaris, parakeimnwn before ra Meier
1850/1, paramnein (the wine ‘lasts well’) Petersen, “Prmneion” M. Schmidt,
perª tän parakeimnwn Hanow 1860, rma Naber, <tän> parakeimnwn
<präto> Zingerle 1893, <rti> or <eÉqÆ> parakeimnwn Holland 1897,
parame©bwn Bersanetti, parakeimnwn before p¼ t¦ trapzh Navarre
1918, parakalän H. Bolkestein (Mnemosyne 18 (1965) 281 –2), pareimnwn
Stefanis 1997.
“ë W malakä tii”: ‘How luxuriously you entertain’, with the verb
used absolutely, as V.5, XXX.2 (tiän Coray, Schneider: q©wn V); cf. X.
Smp. 2.2 telw ¡m tii. For the anonymous conjecture tii see the
Introduction, p. 54 n. 172. q©ei (AB) is inappropriate. ‘What dainty food
you have’ (LSJ malak» i.1) mistranslates q©ei. ‘How luxuriously you dine’
(Rusten) misses its tone: not ‘dine’ (too formal) but ‘eat’. ‘How luxuriously you
eat’ might be acceptable as an address to a fellow guest, but to the host it would
be crude and impolite. He must use a verb which reflects, with due formality,
the role of his host.
malakä refers primarily to physical comfort. It is often used with verbs of
sitting or lying: Ar. Ach. 70 malqakä katake©menoi, Eq. 785 kaq©zou malakä
(on a cushion), X. HG 4.1.30, Cyr. 8.8.19, Eub. 107.1, Theopomp.Com. 65
p©nomen . . . katake©menoi malakÛtat ì pª triklin©wi, Theoc. 7.69 p©omai
malakä (on a comfortable couch); cf. Prop. 1.14.1 –2 tu licet abiectus Tiberina mol-
liter unda | Lesbia Mentoreo uina bibas opere; with a verb signifying provision of com-
fort for another (tii here), Eub. 90.1 oÎkoun Ëpotore±te malakä täi
kun©; (cf. X. Cyr. 8.8.16). For the word in comparable connections, Ar. V. 1455
t¼ trujän kaª malak»n, X. Cyr. 7.2.28 tän mn gaqän kaª tän malakän kaª
eÉjrounän paän, Men. Phasm. 12 Arnott (37 Sandbach) malakä loÅw.
Coray interprets malakä (with q©ei) as ‘foiblement, sans appétit, comme
un malade’, so that ra ti aÉtäi (his conjecture for tän) describes an attempt
by the K»lax to offer his host something to eat. Similarly G. J. de Vries,
Mnemosyne 17 (1964) 385–7, Stefanis 1997. This is not acceptable.
kaª ra ti tän p¼ t¦ trapzh: for this use of p» after the article,
Pl. Cra. 410b arei t p¼ t¦ g¦, KG 1.546, LSJ p» i.5. Cf. IV.3, VII.7,
IX.3. We do not want p© (Pauw).
j¦ai “Toutª ra Þ crht»n ti”: ra expresses ‘a lively feeling of
interest’ (Denniston 33; W. J. Verdenius, Mnemosyne 17 (1964) 387). Âra (Naber
before Diels) is unwanted. For crht» of food, Olson on Ar. Pax 563, Sens
and Olson on Matro 1.63–4.
195
COMMENTARY
kaª rwt¦ai m çigo± kaª e« pibalqai boÅletai: the first question

implies fear or apprehension, hence m (KG 2.394–5, LSJ m c.ii.1, Good-
win §369), as VIII.2; the second may be taken as a simple inquiry, and dele-
tion of e« (Wilamowitz 1902b) is inadvisable. pibalqai (de) must replace
piblleqai (AB). The aorist refers to a single act of investiture, as XIX.6
and XXI.8 nabal»meno (-ball- V in both), H. Od. 6.178 mjibalqai,
Hdt. 1.152.1, 3.139.2 peribal»meno, Ar. V. 1132, 1135 nabaloÓ, Lys. 1096
mbalÛmeqa, Ec. 276 panableqe (-bll- codd.); cf. V.6n. Perhaps e <ti>
pib- (Hanow 1860). For the general idea, Hor. S. 2.5.93–4 mone, si increbruit
aura, | cautus uti uelet carum caput.
kaª ti taÓta lgwn perite±lai aÉt»n· kaª ma ktl.: restored for kaª ti
(tª B) perite©lhi (-te±lai c1 de) aÉt»n· kaª m taÓta lgwn ktl., where ti
is meaningless, perite±lai lame (‘he asks if he wishes to put something on
and he wraps him up’), taÓta lgwn otiose (‘he whispers while he says this’), and
diayiqur©zein pointless (his officiousness should not be hidden in a whisper but
spoken aloud for all to hear). Transposition of taÓta lgwn (Schneider 1799
before Ussing) restores two effective points: (i) taÓta lgwn, now combined
with ti, underlines his officiousness: he takes action even before he has received
an answer to his questions; cf. Hdt. 8.90.2 ti toÅtwn taÓta leg»ntwn, X.
Cyr. 5.5.35 ti lgonto aÉtoÓ, Plb. 1.79.14, 18.4.3, 28.23.3, 31.24.9, also §3
ma toiaÓta lgwn, VII.3 metaxÆ . . . pokrinomnwi; (ii) his whispering, no
longer connected with his questions, becomes an excuse for proximity and over-
familiarity. It is not enough to transpose lgwn alone (Reiske 1757) or to delete it
(Pasquali), since this leaves taÓta with diayiqur©zein, and we do not want him
whispering ‘these things’ (i.e. his officious questions). I reject e ti (Petersen, with
impossible opt. perite©lai) perite©lhi, deliberative subjunctive in indirect
question (KG 2.537(g), Goodwin §677), because it duplicates the preceding
question (the difference between ‘put on’ and ‘put around’ is too slight to justify
it) and leaves taÓta lgwn still with diayiqur©zein. I do not understand e ti
peritele± (Wilamowitz 1902b).
For the unwanted m, I reject m<n> (d), since kaª mn ‘and what is more’
(Denniston 351 –2) would be an anomalous connective (I.6n.; Müller (1874)
34, Blomqvist 66–7). It cannot be taken as adversative (‘and yet he says all this
in a whisper’ Rusten). Apart from the faulty sense (whispered officiousness),
kaª mn meaning ‘and yet’ is not used in this way (Denniston 357–8). m may
either be changed to ma (see on §3 kaª ma toiaÓta lgwn) or deleted.
pr¼ t¼ oÔ prokÅptwn diayiqur©zein: an echo of Pl. Euthd. 275e
prokÅya moi mikr¼n pr¼ t¼ oÔ and 276d plin mikr¼n pr» me yiqur©a.
Cf. Pl. R. 449b legen tta prokekujÛ, Luc. Nec. 21 rma prokÅya pr¼
t¼ oÔ, XI.3 nakÅya, XXIV.8 ktw kekujÛ, XXV.2 nakÅptwn; also
Valckenaer on S E. Ph. 916 [911 ] (ed. Ph. (Franecker 1755) 714). diayiq- (A)
may reasonably be preferred to yiq- (B): for omissions by B see on §2 toÓto d
196
ktl. The compound is first attested here. Presumably the prefix strengthens
the verb; in later examples (see LSJ), where the subject is plural, it may suggest
diffusion.
kaª e« ke±non poblpwn to± lloi lale±n: see on §2 poblpoui
pr¼ . For lale±n, Introd. Note to VII.
11 kaª toÓ paid¼ n täi qetrwi jel»meno t prokejlaia aÉt¼

Ëpoträai: prokejlaion, properly ‘pillow’, is here ‘cushion’ (at XXV.4
it could be either); similarly pot©kranon (Theoc. 15.3); Pritchett 253–4.
Aeschines alleges, as evidence of the kolake©a of Demosthenes towards the
ambassadors of Philip, that e« proedr©an klee kaª prokejlaia qhke
kaª joinik©da perieptae (3.76; cf. 2.111). See also Ar. Eq. 783–5, Ov. Ars
1.159–60.
12 kaª tn o«k©an j¦ai eÔ rcitekton¦qai: cf. Luc. Pr.Im. 20 £n o«k©an

pain¦i kaln kaª rita katekeuamnhn, epoi n “Zhn» pou toide g ì
ìOlump©ou ndoqen aÉl”. ¾ d k»lax toÓto t¼ po kn perª t¦ ubÛtou
kalÅbh epoi, e« m»non ti par toÓ ubÛtou labe±n lp©eien. For the verb,
Arnott on Alex. 153.2.
kaª t¼n gr¼n eÔ pejuteÓqai: for gr» ‘farm’, ‘field’, Pritchett 262.
kaª tn e«k»na ¾mo©an e²nai: this may refer to sculpture or painting. Nat-
uralistic portraiture was a very recent development (M. Robertson, A History
of Greek Art (Cambridge 1975) 508–9, Lane Fox 145). Cf. Arist. Po. 1454 b 9–11
de± mime±qai toÆ gaqoÆ e«konogrjou · kaª gr ke±noi podid»nte tn
«d©an morjn ¾mo©ou poioÓnte kall©ou grjouin; for the flattery, Luc.
Pr.Im. 6 pntwn oÔn tän toioÅtwn kategla tän parec»ntwn aËtoÆ to±
k»laxin, kaª proet©qei d Âti m n pa©noi m»non ll kaª n graja± t
Âmoia polloª kolakeÅeqa© te kaª xapatqai qloui. “Ca©roui goÓn”
jh “tän grajwn ke©noi mlita o° n pr¼ t¼ eÉmorj»teron aÉtoÆ
e«kwin”, 10 kaª autn oÔn t¼ mn plma ou paine±n kaª tn p©noian
tän e«k»nwn, m gnwr©zein d tn ¾moi»thta.
[13] Epilogue
t¼ kejlaion: see on I.6 t¼ Âlon.
t¼n k»laka ti qeaqai pnta kaª lgonta kaª prttonta: ‘One may
see the Toady saying and doing everything’ (same construction as epil. I eËre±n
ti, epil. X tin «de±n), not ‘the flatterer is on the lookout for everything in word
or deed’ (Rusten). The pairing of lgein and prttein, elsewhere common
(E. Kemmer, Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur (Würzburg 1903)
197
COMMENTARY
213–15, 238–40, Nesselrath on Luc. Par. 5), reflects the pairing of nouns for
speech and action in the definitions (def. I n.).
pnta . . . æi carie±qai Ëpolambnei: pnta . . . æi is comparable to
the regular pnte Âti or Á n (KG 1.56–7; neuter X. Cyr. 8.2.25 pnta
Âtou dei), but different in so far as the relative here is Â (not Âti or Á n).
pn (Cobet 1874) could be right (LSJ p d.iii.2). Alternatively o³ (de). Less
plausibly pnth Bucarest 602 (2 Wilson), coni. Diels, pn ti Jebb, e« Ussing,
di ì æn Ribbeck 1874 (cl. M di ì Âwn).
198
III
T H E C H AT T E R B OX
Introductory note
ìAdolec©a is talk on matters which others perceive as unimportant. The word
and its cognates are commonly applied to philosophers and sophists: Ar. Nu.
1480, 1485, fr. 506, Eup. 386, 388, Alex. 185 (Arnott ad loc.); frequently in Plato,
e.g. Phd. 70b-c (Socrates) oÎkoun g ì n o²mai . . . e«pe±n tina nÓn koÅanta,
oÉd ì e« kwmwidopoi¼ eh, Þ dolecä kaª oÉ perª prohk»ntwn toÆ
l»gou poioÓmai. Aristotle defines as dolca those who are jilomÅqou
kaª dihghtikoÆ kaª perª tän tuc»ntwn katatr©bonta t ¡mra (EN
1117 b 34–5); and dolec©a is characteristic of the old, who like to tell of the
past (Rh. 1390a 9–11). There is an essay by Plutarch Perª dolec©a (502b-
515a).
The ìAdolch is characterised by the triviality and unconnectedness of his
talk. He moves calmly from one trite subject to the next, caring little whether
the second follows logically from the first. He has a single auditor, whom he
detains while they are seated. He is different from the Llo (VII), who has
various auditors in various places and discourses to each on a single subject
with greater urgency and self-importance. See the Introd. Note to VII.
[1 ] Definition
ë H d dolec©a tª mn: the particle is similarly placed in def. V and IX
(Denniston 371 –2).
dighi l»gwn makrän kaª probouleÅtwn: an incompetent expression.
We do not want a ‘narration’ of speeches: dighi may have been prompted
by dihgaqai in §2 or by dihghtikoÅ in Arist. EN 1117 b 34 (Introd. Note).
The epithets are carelessly chosen. makro© is a standard epithet for l»goi and
usually conveys a note of disapproval or sarcasm (e.g. S. El. 1335, Ar. Ach.
303, E. IA 313, D. 19.11, 303, Pl. Grg. 465e, Prt. 329b, 335c, Sph. 268b, Plb.
11.10.6; LSJ ii.2). But, while some of the man’s subjects (the encomium of
his wife, the account of his dream) may have needed lengthy exposition, and
the accumulation of subjects makes for a long and tedious speech, the sketch
illustrates not so much long-windedness or tediousness as triviality. Emendation
is otiose: ka©rwn H. Friesemann (Collectanea critica (Amsterdam 1786) 171 –2),
mata©wn Ast, oÉ kair©wn £ makrän (from M) Edmonds 1908. probouleÅtwn
is just as bad: the subjects would not have been more appealing if they had
been better thought out in advance. See Stein 70–1.
199
COMMENTARY
2 toioÓt» ti: ti restored in place of tin (AB) by Hanow 1861, before
Herwerden 1871 and Cobet 1874; I.2n.
Án m gignÛkei, toÅtwi parakaqez»meno plh©on: cf. XIII.5 oÍ oÉ (m
Navarre) gignÛkei, XXIII.6 gnÛtwn . . . parakaqhmnwn, Hor. S. 1.9.3
(the boor) accurrit quidam notus mihi nomine tantum. gin- (AB) is not attested in
Attic inscriptions before the Roman period (Threatte 1.562–5, 2.770, Arnott,
‘Orthographical variants’ 196). For Ân . . . toÅtwi (and the following Á . . .
toÓto), IX.2 Án . . . toÓton, KG 1.647 (9), Schwyzer 2.640 (1). For the pleonasm
parakaqez»meno plh©on, Ar. Th. 409 parakqhntai plh©on, E. Ph. 160
plh©on paratate± (cf. Ar. Ra. 969, Ec. 9), Ar. Ec. 725 parakolouqä plh©on,
Luc. Pisc. 12 parakaqiamnh plh©on; KG 2.583–4, Diggle, Studies on the Text
of Euripides 39. Deletion of plh©on (Schneider) is misguided.
präton mn . . . e²ta . . . e²q ì . . . e²ta d: the repetition brings out
his persistence and the continuousness of his talk. He begins with three self-
referential narratives (his wife, then his dream, then his dinner), and then, when
this strategy proves successful, he embarks on a potentially endless series of
disjointed trivialities. Connective e²ta (elswhere IX.2, XIII.6, XXV.4, kita
IV.7) has something of a colloquial tone (K. J. Dover, Lysias and the Corpus
Lysiacum (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1968) 84–5, id. Greek and the Greeks (Oxford
1987) 28–9). For d, XX.3n.
Á t¦ nukt¼ e²den nÅpnion, toÓto dihgaqai: cf. XVI.11. Dreams are
conventionally ‘seen’: G. Björck, Eranos 44 (1946) 306–14, Arnott on Alex.
274.1.
æn e²cen pª täi de©pnwi t kaq ì kata diexelqe±n: pª täi d- fr. 121
Wimmer (572 Fortenbaugh), X. Cyr. 1.3.12, Lac. 15.4, Hp. Epid. 2.6.31 (5.138
Littré), Mul. 75 (8.164), 133 (8.300), Demon, FGrH 327 f 1 (LSJ p© b.i.i); t kaq ì
kata CP 2.3.5, Vert. 3, Arist. EN 1107 a 31 (and often), D. 18.214, 49.66, Hyp.
Eux. 4, Aeschin. 2.25, Men. Dysc. 45, PCG adesp. 1081.2. t kaq ì katon
(Schneider) would be anomalous (u.l. Aeschin. 3.217, Arist. GC 335 a 27; t
(Hertlein: t¼ codd.) kaq ì katon D.S. 1.85.5). Cf. Petr. 66.1 quid habuistis in
cena?
3 e²ta d procwroÓnto toÓ prgmato: not quite ‘as matters progress’

(Rusten, al.), but ‘as the business proceeds successfully’. The phrase expresses
not so much the temporal progression of events in general as the suc-
cessful development of the matter in hand. Sometimes the verb is quali-
fied (e.g. Th. 1.74.4 kaq ì ¡uc©an n aÉtäi proucÛrhe t prgmata
ï boÅleto, 6.103.2 tlla proucÛrei aÉto± lp©da), but some-
times it stands alone (Hdt. 8.108.3 oÎte ti procwrein o³»n te tai tän
prhgmtwn, Th. 4.73.4 t ple©w aÉto± proukecwrkei, 5.37.2 toÅtou
procwranto, 6.90.3 e« . . . procwreie taÓta, 8.68.4 t¼ rgon . . .
proucÛrhen). ‘ubi incaluerit’ (Casaubon), ‘warming to the work’ (Jebb),
200
III: THE CHATTERBOX
‘getting into his stride’ (Vellacott), do not quite capture the idea. Cf. TGL s.u.,
LSJ ii.1.
lgein Þ polÆ ponhr»tero© e«in o¬ nÓn nqrwpoi tän rca©wn: a motif
as old as Homer (Il. 1.271 –2 ke©noii d ì n oÎ ti | tän o° nÓn broto© e«in
picq»nioi macoito; cf. 5.303–4), expressed most memorably by Hor. Carm.
3.6.46–8 aetas parentum peior auis tulit | nos nequiores, mox daturos | progeniem uitiosiorem
(cf. Arat. 123–4). See A. O. Lovejoy and G. Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas
in Antiquity (Baltimore 1935), esp. ch. 2, K. Jost, Das Beispiel und Vorbild der
Vorfahren bei den attischen Rednern und Geschichtschreibern bis Demosthenes (Paderborn
1936) 153–4, 231 –4, B. Gatz, Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen
(Hildesheim 1967). For ponhr», Introd. Note to XXIX.
kaª Þ xioi geg»nain o¬ puroª n t¦i gori: cf. Men. Phasm. 2 Arnott
(27 Sandbach) pä e«in o¬ puroª [kat ì gorn ßnioi;. For the sale of grain in
the Agora, Wycherley, Agora iii 193–4. For pur», Pritchett 189, 196–8, Olson
on Ar. Pax 1144–5.
Athens was heavily dependent on imported grain, and its price, being sen-
sitive to changes in supply, is a subject of regular remark (Wankel on D. 18.87,
Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 192–3); for attested shortages of grain,
XXIII.5n. But, while anyone may complain of the dearness of food (Ter. An.
746 annona carast, Petr. 44.1), it takes a Chatterbox to find its cheapness a worth-
while subject of conversation. To suppose that he is complaining that his own
wheat is selling too cheaply (Steinmetz, Bodei Giglioni 88–9) is a misjudge-
ment. xio ‘good value for money, cheap’ (LSJ 3.b) is regularly applied to food
(wheat, as here, Pherecr. 67; grain, Lys. 22.8, 22; fish, Ar. Eq. 645, 672, V. 491 ;
silphium stalks, Ar. Eq. 894–5; bread, Eub. 9.2–3), also to bronze-ware (X. Vect.
4.6); elsewhere at IX.6 (no specific application), XVII.6 (slave). To make the
wheat expensive (<oÉk> xioi Coray, <oÉ> geg»nain Navarre 1920) is to
ruin the point.
kaª Þ polloª pidhmoÓi xnoi: these xnoi are not mtoikoi (Bodei Giglioni
101 n. 115) but foreign visitors (as V.4, XXIII.2, epil. XXVI; D. Whitehead, The
Ideology of the Athenian Metic (PCPhS Suppl. 4, 1977) 40–1). They are numerous
probably because (as the next clause suggests) many of them have come from
overseas for the Dionysia (Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 58–9). Cf. IX.5n.
kaª tn qlattan k Dionu©wn plÛimon e²nai: the City Dionysia was
held in Elaphebolion (roughly March), the start of the sailing season (Pickard-
Cambridge, DFA 63–6, J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian
Year (Princeton 1975) 125–30, 137, L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient
World (Princeton 2 1986) 270–3, MacDowell on D. 21.10). The return of sailing
weather, welcome as it was, is a subject of regular remark (Nisbet and Hubbard
on Hor. Carm. 1.4.2). For k ‘starting from’, ‘after’, LSJ a.ii.2; the form plÛimon,
C. A. Lobeck, Phrynichi Eclogae (Leipzig 1820) 614–16, KB 1.168, LSJ s.u. Similar
change of construction (to acc. and infin. after Þ with indic.) XX.9, XXIX.3,
201
COMMENTARY
the reverse change XXIII.9; cf. KG 2.357, J. Ros, Die METABOLH (Variatio)
als Stilprinzip des Thucydides (Nijmegen 1938) 411 –15.
kaª e« poieien ¾ ZeÆ Ìdwr ple±on t n t¦i g¦i belt©w eqai: cf. CP
1.19.3 n ge d ple©w poi¦i Ìdata, Ar. V. 261 Ìdwr nagka©w cei t¼n
qe¼n poi¦ai, D.L. 2.36 “oÉk legon” e²pen (sc. wkrth) “Âti Xanq©pph
brontäa Ìdwr poiei;” The expression has the ring of popular speech
(XIV.12n.).
M. D. Macleod, Mnemosyne 27 (1974) 75–6, finds an echo of this passage
(and the preceding Þ xioi geg»nain o¬ puro©) in Luc. Icar. 24 (Zeus asks)
p»ou nÓn ¾ pur» tin ßnio pª t¦ ëElldo . . . kaª e« t lcana de±tai
ple©ono pombr©a. The resemblance is too slight to prove direct imitation
(see the Introduction, p. 26).
kaª Án gr¼n e« nwta gewrgei: he says what land he will cultivate next
year, implying that he will leave some of his land fallow, the usual practice (West
on Hes. Op. 462–3, Pomeroy on X. Oec. 16.11, 13, P. Garnsey, Famine and Food
Supply in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge 1988) 93–4). There may be a hint
of naive optimism: the farmer hopes to strike it rich next year, a familiar saw
(Philem. 85 eª gewrg¼ e« nwta ploÅio, Theodoridis on Phot. A 421). Án
gr»n is the most plausible correction of ¾ gr» (AB). An indirect question is
regularly introduced by relative Â with noun in agreement: e.g. HP 2.6.12 Án
tr»pon, Hdt. 4.53.4, Th. 5.9.2, 6.34.6, 8.50.5, Aeschin. 3.94 (KG 2.438–9).
The best alternative is Þ groÅ or -»n (Lycius). But the sense (‘that he will
farm his land’) is weaker. Âti t¼n gr»n (Auberius) and Âti gr¼n (Casaubon)
have a further weakness: since Þ is used thrice before and thrice after in this
sentence, Âti would be a little surprising (though there is a switch from Þ to
Âti at VII.9, and a less striking switch at XXIII.3). For the expression gr¼n . . .
gewrgei, Men. Georg. 35, PCG adesp. 895.1, D.H. 6.86.4, Plu. 829d; gr»,
II.12n.; e« nwta, KG 1.538–40.
kaª Þ calep»n ti t¼ z¦n: cf. X. Mem. 2.9.1 Þ calep¼n ¾ b©o ìAqnhin
eh ndrª boulomnwi t autoÓ prttein.
kaª Þ Dmippo muthr©oi meg©thn dida then: torches played an
important part in the events at Eleusis. This torch is presumably a votive
offering by a grateful initiate. Remains of one such torch of marble survive
(G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton 1961) 204). meg©thn
is probably ‘very large’ rather than ‘largest’, a sense which would be more
clearly expressed by meg©thn <tn> dida (Edmonds 1929), like X. Mem.
1.4.13 tn yucn krat©thn täi nqrÛpwi njue (KG 1.614–15). ‘A very
large torch’ is less pointed and may be preferable for that reason. muthr©oi
is ‘at (the time of)’, local/temporal dative (KG 1.445); cf. XXII.2 tragwido±.
The name Dmippo (Damippo Reiske 1757) is well attested: Hyp. fr. 66
Jensen, LGPN 2.98, 3a.109–10, J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens 5 (Toronto
1996) 20–1.
202
III: THE CHATTERBOX
kaª p»oi e«ª k©one toÓ ì Wide©ou: the Odeion of Pericles, a large concert-
hall (sometimes used for other purposes), by the south-east slope of the
Acropolis, adjacent to the theatre of Dionysus. Described by Plu. Per. 13.9
as polÅtulon, it had (so excavation has revealed) 10 rows of 9 columns:
J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London 1971) 387–91, R. Meinel,
Das Odeion (Frankfurt 1980) 135–50, Stadter on Plu. loc. cit., M. C. Miller, Athens
and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge 1997)
218–42; on its date (disputed), M. Hose, Philologus 137 (1993) 3–11. The clause is
usually taken as a question in direct speech, but is more effective in its triviality
if taken as a reported statement. <o¬> k©one Bodl. Auct. T.V.6 (35 Wilson),
commended by Stefanis (1994a) 91, 93, 118, could be right (cf. V.7 o¬ P: om.
AB). Alternatively, täi ì Wide©wi.
kaª “Cq ¢mea”: for the isolated statement in direct speech, VII.9.
kaª t© tin ¡mra tmeron: again, like p»oi k©one ktl., more effective as
a statement than as a question. The Attic spelling tmeron (h- AB), restored
by Herwerden before Diels, is also found in Munich 490 (30 Wilson), according
to Stefanis (1994a) 118. See Arnott, ‘Orthographical variants’ 209–10.
kaª Þ . . . DionÅia: these words are transmitted at the end of the sketch,
after kn Ëpomnhi ti aÉt¼n m j©taqai, which must themselves stand at
the end (m j©taqai [kaª] Þ (Steinmetz) and kata<lgwn> Þ (Stark
ap. Steinmetz 350) are futile tinkering). They must therefore be placed earlier;
but precisely where is disputable. Hottinger (before Schneider) transposed
them the minimum distance, after tmeron (meron), a transposition already
contemplated but declined by Pauw. The tricolon of dates follows well enough
after ‘yesterday’ and ‘today’, and rounds off the narrative with well-balanced
tedium. There is no clear advantage in transposing them further: after then
(B. A. van Groningen, Mnemosyne 58 (1930) 56–7), after ì Wide©ou (Navarre 1931 ).
Deletion of kaª Þ . . . DionÅia (Ussing) is gratuitous: the catalogue of festivals
is a fine touch.25 Deletion of kn . . . j©taqai (Diels) is also implausible: if
an interpolator was minded to add a comment like this, he would not add it in
this place. The suggestion that it is an afterthought by T. himself (Stein 50–1)
is no more appealing (see on I.2 uggnÛmhn ktl.).
Bohdromiäno mn ti t mutria: Boedromion was roughly Septem-
ber. The name of the month may stand without article (e.g. ëEkatombaiäno
HP 3.5.2, Mouniciäno Aeschin. 2.91) or with article (see on XXVIII.4 toÓ
Poideäno); sometimes mhn» is added (e.g. Bohdromiäno mhn» HP 4.11.4,
Mouniciäno mhn» D. 49.6, mhn¼ Maimakthriäno Is. 7.14, Arist. HA
566a 18; toÓ Metageitniäno mhn» HP 7.1.2, Is. 3.57, D. 56.5, toÓ Mouni-
ciäno mhn» D. 49.44; cf. XXX.14). For the genitive, KG 1.386. For the
25 ‘The living religious practice of the Greeks is concentrated on the festivals . . . which
interrupt and articulate everyday life’ (Burkert, Greek Religion 225).
203
COMMENTARY
Mysteries, Mikalson (above on kaª tn qlattan ktl.) 54–6, 65, H. W. Parke,
Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977) 53–72, Burkert, Greek Religion 285–90.
Puanoyiäno d <t> ìApatoÅria: the Apatouria is the annual festi-
val of the phratries, lasting three days, in Pyanopsion (roughly October); L.
Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 232–4, Mikalson 79, Parke 88–92, Burk-
ert, Greek Religion 255, S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor 1993)
ch. 4 (esp. 157), Parker, Athenian Religion 104–5, 107, 265; XXI.3n., XXX.16n.
ìApatoÅria, without article, is commoner (Hdt. 1.147.2, Ar. Ach. 146, Th. 558,
And. 1.126, Pl. Ti. 21 b, X. HG 1.7.8), but the article is included at D. 39.4,
and is desirable here in view of the preceding t mutria and the follow-
ing <t> . . . DionÅia (where its addition is inescapable). M has it; Stefanis
(1994a) 101, 118, reports it from Ambros. I 111 inf. (25 Wilson), which cannot
(as he suggests) have derived it from a printed edition, since the first editor to
add it was Darvaris, anticipating Petersen, Herwerden (who took it from M),
and Naber (who wrongly imputed it to A). For the form Puanoy- (Puaney-
AB), Meisterhans 23.
Poideäno d <t> kat ì groÆ DionÅia: the Rural Dionysia (t kat ì
groÆ D- Ar. Ach. 202, 250, Aeschin. 1.157) in Posideon (roughly December);
Deubner 134–8, Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 42–56, Mikalson 97, Parke 100–
3, Whitehead, Demes of Attica 212–22, Csapo and Slater 124. For the form
Poid- (Poeid- AB), Meisterhans 54, Threatte 1.200, 2.126, 129–30, 705. Cf.
XXVIII.4.
kn Ëpomnhi ti aÉt»n, m j©taqai: cf. Plu. 503a-b (of Aristotle) no-
cloÅmeno Ëp ì dolcou kaª kopt»meno t»poi tiª dihgmai, pol-
lki aÉtoÓ lgonto “oÉ qaumat»n, ìArit»tele;”, “oÉ toÓto” jh©
“qaumat»n, ll ì e ti p»da cwn Ëpomnei”, and XV.9n. For j©taqai
‘desist’, E. El. 66, Pl. Lg. 960e m to©nun jitÛmeqa mhdenª tr»pwi prªn n
ktl.
[4] Epilogue
parae©anta d: ‘swinging the arms’, in running, with ce±ra some-
times expressed (Lass. 13 ∼ [Arist.] Pr. 881 b 4 ¾ qwn parae©wn [[pr¼
del. Schneider]] t ce±ra, Arist. IA 705 a 17–18 o¬ qonte qtton qoui
parae©onte t ce±ra), sometimes not (Lass. 13 ∼ 881 b 6 qtton qe±
parae©wn £ m parae©wn, Arist. EN 1123 b 31 oÉdamä . . . n rm»zoi mega-
loyÅcwi jeÅgein parae©anti (parae©onti H. Richards, Aristotelica (London
1915) 10), Macho 15 parae©wn). A present part. parae©onta is expected here,
no less than in Arist. EN, which may be the writer’s model. For d, epil. I n.
toÆ toioÅtou tän nqrÛpwn <jeÅgein>: subject changes to plural, as
in epilogues VI, VIII, X. The commoner structure would be toÆ toioÅtou
204
III: THE CHATTERBOX
nqrÛpou (epil. VIII, XXVI.4). But the partitive gen. (which has been taken
as a sign of late composition or of corruption) is regular: XXVI.3 to± toioÅtoi
tän l»gwn, Th. 3.42.4 toÆ toioÅtou tän politän, Pl. Alc.1 117e, Isoc.
5.12, 7.76, 11.49, 20.21, D. 24.215, Lycurg. 133, Arist. EN 1168b 12, SE 161 a 26,
173 b 1, 175 a 3, 182 b 3, Din. 3.13; cf. on V.7 tän . . . gumna©wn n toÅtoi.
For toioÓto in other epilogues, epil. I n. An infin. is needed to govern toÆ
toioÅtou, and jeÅgein is the verb which appears in similar contexts (Arist.
EN 1123 b 31 cited above; Epic. fr. 163, Plu. 15d, 1094d, cited below); cf. epil. I
jultteqai . . . de±. Casaubon’s alternative proposal, in the copy of his 1599
edition in the British Library (see the Introduction, p. 54 n. 172), to delete toÆ
toioÅtou tän nqrÛpwn, does not appeal.
kaª <t¼ kteion> d ì rmenon palltteqai: the kteion was a small
sail used by warships to escape danger, when the main sail had been taken
down: C. Torr, Ancient Ships (Cambridge 1895) 86, L. Casson, ‘The emer-
gency rig of ancient warships’, TAPhA 98 (1967) 43–8, id. Ships and Seamanship
(§3n.) 236–7, 241 –2, J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships 900–
322 BC (Cambridge 1968) 298–9. Jackson’s superlative conjecture (Margina-
lia Scaenica 233–4) for diarmeno (AB) restores the idiomatic locution found
in Ar. Lys. 64 tkteion (van Leeuwen: tktion R) ¢ireto, Epic. fr. 163
Usener (ap. D.L. 10.6) paide©an d pan, makrie, jeÓge t¼ kteion r-
meno (jeugete katadiaramen uel sim. codd.), Plu. 15d t¼ ìEpikoÅreion kteion
ramnou poihtikn jeÅgein kaª parexelaÅnein, 1094d toÆ mn param-
nou t kteia jeÅgein p ì aÉtän keleÅouin. The old interpretation of
diarmenon, ‘(sc. toÆ p»da) with long strides’ (LSJ), must be abandoned.
kaª . . . d is found thrice elsewhere in spurious passages (VI.7, epil. X bis;
I.2n.). Although d ì is dispensable, the transmitted diar- commends it.
Âti pÅreto boÅletai e²nai: pÅreuto (AB), unattested, would mean
‘unburned’ (from pureÅw). Better ‘unfevered’, either pÅreto or pÅrekto
(for both of which see LSJ), even though boring talk normally threatens not
fever but death (Theoc. 5.78–9, Pl. Mil. 1084, Hor. S. 1.9.31 –4).
rgon gr: ‘It is difficult’. To the single instance with infin. cited by LSJ
iv.1.c (‘Men. 76’, i.e. Asp. 21) may be added XXV.3, HP 4.10.5, X. Cyr. 1.1.5,
3.3.27, 6.3.27, HG 6.1.19, 7.1.31, D. 15.34, 25.47, 59.91, Arist. EN 1109a 25,
al., Men. Dysc. 905, Karch. 7, Sic. 410, fr. 9, 767, 807, Apollod.Com. 2, Diph.
100, Posidipp. 21, 35. As here, ti is commonly omitted (XXV.3n.). There is
a similar idiom in English: ‘It is quite a task to be civil to her’ (Anne Brontë,
The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, ch. 27), ‘it is a job to’ (OED Suppl. ‘job’ 4.b).
unarkeqai: the passive (‘be content with’, ‘approve of’), first in [Arist.]
Ath. 33.2 oÉ unarek»menoi to± Ëp¼ tän tetrako©wn gignomnoi, is com-
mon in later Greek, e.g. J. Vit. 34 t¦i gnÛmhi . . . oÉ unhrketo P©to
(cf. 185, 315), Heliod. ap. Orib. 49.9.39 toÅtwi gÜ täi katartimäi oÉ
unarkomai, Porph. Abst. 2.27 (T. Piet. fr. 13.40–2 Pötscher, 584A.302–4
205
COMMENTARY
Fortenbaugh) to± mn gr ¤ te jÅi kaª pa tän nqrÛpwn ¡ t¦ yuc¦
aqhi drwmnoi unhrketo, with personal dat. Severianus (4th cent. ad)
p. 215 Staab to± prttouin aÉt unarkontai. Although rke±qai has
the sense ‘be satisfied with’ (LSJ iv.1), unarke±qai (AB) (‘acquiesce in, put up
with’ LSJ) is not elsewhere attested. Other conjectures: una©reqai Duport,
unartqai or unhrt¦qai Needham, unrceqai Newton, tin rkai
or rkeqai Darvaris (the latter also Herwerden), oÔn rke±qai Meineke,
une©rgeqai Sheppard.
to± mte coln mte poudn diaginÛkouin: there is nothing to choose
between coln . . . poudn (B) and poudn . . . coln (A); II.3n.
206
IV
T H E C O U N T RY B U M P K I N
Introductory note
O. Ribbeck, Agroikos. Eine ethologische Studie (ASG 23 (1888) 1 –68), remains funda-
mental. See also V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes (Oxford 2 1951) 73–94,
Dover, Greek Popular Morality 112–14.
ìAgroik©a is rustic behaviour seen through the eyes of the townsman. The
Stoics (SVF 3 fr. 677) defined it as peir©a tän kat p»lin qän kaª n»mwn;
similarly Men. Georg. fr. 3 Koerte (5 Sandbach, Arnott) e«mª mn groiko . . .
| kaª tän kat ì tu pragmtwn oÉ pantelä | mpeiro, Ov. Am. 3.4.37–8
rusticus est nimium . . . et notos mores non satis Vrbis habet. Rusticity may embrace
rudeness of mind as well as of manner: Alcm. 16 Page oÉk § nr gre±o
oÉd kai», Ar. Nu. 135–8 maq ge n D© ì . . . :: Åggnwq© moi· thloÓ
gr o«kä tän grän, 492 nqrwpo maq oËtoª kaª brbaro, 628–9
oÉk e²don oÌtw ndr ì groikon oÉdamoÓ | oÉd ì poron oÉd kai¼n oÉd ì
pilmona, 646 Þ groiko e² kaª dumaq, 655 gre±o e² kaª kai»,
E. Rh. 266 § p»ll ì grÛtai kai pr»keitai jren©, Apollod.Car. 5.5–6
groiko . . . oÉd paide©an Âlw | e«du±a, Ephipp. 23.1 Þ kai¼ e² kgroiko
a«croepän, Philet. fr. 10 Powell oÎ m ti x ½rwn pojÛlio groiÛth
| a¬rei klqrhn, a«r»meno maklhn· | ll ì pwn e«dÜ k»mon kaª poll
moga | mÅqwn panto©wn o³mon pitmeno. It is a handy accusation to
level at a townsman: Ar. V. 1320–1 kÛptwn gro©kw kaª proti l»gou
lgwn | maqtat ì oÉdn e«k»ta täi prgmati. Cnemon in Men. Dysc. is
a true groiko, but when a townsman calls him that (956 groiko e²) the
purpose is mockery. Several poets wrote comedies entitled *groiko (listed
by Kassel and Austin, PCG 4.17; cf. Ph.-E. Legrand, Daos: Tableau de la comédie
grecque pendant la période dite nouvelle (Lyon and Paris 1910) 72–80, Konstantakos
18–24).26 The word and its cognates are favourites of Plato, whose usage is often
tinged with irony or humour: e.g. Phdr. 229e gro©kwi tinª oj©ai crÛmeno,
269b Ëp ì groik©a ç¦m ti e«pe±n pa©deuton, Tht. 146a oÎ t© pou . . . gÜ
Ëp¼ jilolog©a groik©zomai . . .;
Aristotle defines groik©a in relation to eÉtrapel©a ‘wit’. On a scale of
‘pleasant amusements’ (t¼ ¡dÆ t¼ . . . n paidii) the mean is eÉtrapel©a,
of which an excess is bwmoloc©a ‘buffoonery’, a deficiency is groik©a
(EN 1108a 23–6, EE 1234 a 3–5; cf. MM 1193 a 12–19). groikoi are insensitive
(na©qhtoi) in that they shun pleasures (EN 1104 a 24–5, EE 1230b 18–20) and
26 Konstantakos has now developed this treatment in two detailed articles soon to
be published: ‘Antiphanes’ Agroikos-plays: an examination of the ancient evidence
and fragments’ (RCCM 2004) and ‘Aspects of the figure of the ï Agroiko in ancient
comedy’ (RhM).
207
COMMENTARY
are hard-nosed (klhro©) in that they cannot make or take a joke (EN 1128a 7–
9; cf. EE 1234 a 8–10); being unadept in social relations they are prone to take
offence (EN 1128b 1 –3); and they are apt to be inflexible («curognÛmone),
like the opinionated («diognÛmone) and the stupid (maqe±) (EN 1151 b 12–13).
This type of groik©a may be translated as ‘boorishness’.
The *groiko is a countryman who comes to town and shows his country
manners (cf. Millett, Lending and Borrowing 35). It is wrong to translate him as
‘boor’.
[1 ] Definition
For the maq©a of the countryman see the passages cited in the Introd. Note.
The word often connotes not only intellectual incapacity but also a lack of
moral or aesthetic judgement (‘a failure to understand what is required by
decency and propriety’, Dover, Greek Popular Morality 122; cf. Denniston on E.
El. 294–6, Bond on Herc. 283, 347). Here cmwn hints at this extended sense.
But as a definition ‘ignorance of good form’ (I adopt the translation of Bennett
and Hammond) is inadequate: it misses the essential link between groik©a
and the country (Stein 73).
2 For comment on this scene see the Introduction, pp. 20–1.

kukeäna piÜn e« kklh©an poreÅeqai: cf. Eup. 99.81 –2 ]. o pot ì e«
go[r]n kukeä piÜn | [. . . . . . kr]©mnwn t[n] Ëpnhn nplew (where the
focus is on appearance, not smell). The kukeÛn was a mixture of grain and liquid
(water, wine, milk, honey, or oil) and sometimes cheese, often seasoned with
herbs (here with qÅmon), commonly associated with the poor or the countryman
(A. Delatte, Le Cycéon (Paris 1955), N. J. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter
(Oxford 1974) 344–8, Dalby 190–1).
While e« tn kklh©an is normal (it was proposed here by Orth), e« kk-
is also found (Pl. Alc.1 113b, Lg. 764a, Kassel and Austin on Eup. 192.148).
The article is often omitted with prepositional phrases indicating localities
(n kklh©ai XXIX.5n., e« gr»n XIV.3, XXVII.10, e« gorn XIX.6, n
gräi §3, XIV.11, n qetrwi XI.3, pª khnn XXV.8; cf. XXVII.3n., KG
1.602–3).
It was nothing out of the ordinary for a countryman to attend the Assembly
(Ehrenberg (Introd. Note) 84, Hansen, Athenian Democracy 61, 126–7).
kaª t¼ mÅron jkein oÉdn toÓ qÅmou ¤dion Àzein: mÅron is a general
term for perfume, a compound of oil and aromatic fragrance (Od. 13–45, Hug,
‘Salben’, RE i.2a (1920) 1851 –66, D. L. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford 1955)
78–9, Gow on Theoc. 15.114 and Macho 187, Bulloch on Call. Lav.Pall. 16,
M.-C. Amouretti, Le pain et l’huile dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1986) 185–9, Olson
208
I V: T H E C O U N T R Y B U M P K I N
and Sens on Archestr. 60.3 and Matro 1.105–6, Dalby 27–8; V.6n. cr©mati).
qÅmon is an ingredient in the kukeÛn (as Ar. Pax 1169). The name is applied
to both an aromatic shrub (‘thyme’, for short) and varieties of garlic (A. C.
Andrews, Osiris 13 (1958) 150–6, Arnott on Alex. 122.2, Olson on Ar. loc. cit.).
The entry in LSJ qÅmon 2, ‘mixture of thyme with honey and vinegar’, is rightly
deleted in the Rev. Suppl. For the contrast, Pl. Mos. 39–42 oboluisti alium . . . :: . . .
non omnes possunt olere unguenta exotica. Countrymen and perfume do not mix: Eup.
222 cÝmun©a ke±no mlei klaÅetai, | Âti <àn> groiko ¯tatai pr¼
täi mÅrwi. The ìAneleÅqero equivocates with similar insouciance (XXII.11).
Those who suppose that something is missing (kaª <tän plh©on pª t¦i
½m¦i ducerain»ntwn> t¼ mÅron Meister, <tän parakaqezomnwn pª t¦i
½m¦i ducerain»ntwn> Navarre 1920, who wrongly imputes a lacuna to
Schneider, through misunderstanding Meister’s note) ruin a passage of studied
economy.
kaª me©zw toÓ pod¼ t Ëpodmata jore±n: oversized shoes are associated
with rusticity in Ar. Eq. 316–21 Ëpotmnwn pÛlei drma mocqhroÓ bo¼
| to± gro©koiin panoÅrgw, ãte ja©neqai pacÅ, | kaª prªn ¡mran
jor¦ai me±zon §n duo±n docma±n. :: n D©a km toÓt ì drae taÉt»n, ãte
katgelwn | pmpolun to± dhm»taii kaª j©loi paraceqe±n· | prªn gr
e²nai Perga¦in neon n ta± mbin (same image Ov. Ars 1.516 nec uagus in
laxa pes tibi pelle natet, Sid.Ap. Ep. 8.11.3 laxo pes natet altus in cothurno) and Hor. S.
1.3.30–2 rideri possit eo quod | rusticius tonso toga defluit et male laxus | in pede calceus
haeret; with farce in Hor. Ep. 2.1.174 (aspice . . .) quam non astricto percurrat pulpita
socco (in Luc. Gall. 26 a tragic actor trips and reveals tän mbatän tn Ëp»dein
morjotthn kaª oÉcª kat l»gon toÓ pod»). Conversely, Pl. Hp.Ma. 294a
peidn ¬mti ti lbhi £ Ëpodmata rm»ttonta, kn §i gelo±o, kall©wn
ja©netai. Hence perª p»da ‘fitting, appropriate’ (Hsch. P 1823 perª p»da·
oÌtw kloun t¼ rm»zon metajronte p¼ tän ummtrwn to± poªn
Ëpodhmtwn. £ kribä, LSJ poÅ i.6.c, Kassel and Austin on Pl.Com. 221).
For the turn of phrase, epil. X lttw tän mhrän. Contrast II.7.
kaª meglhi t¦i jwn¦i lale±n: talking too loud is associated with rusticity
in Cratin. 371 grob»a nr (Phot. A 267 ¾ gro©kw jqegg»meno kaª oÉk
te©w oÉd mmelä), Pl. Mos. 6–7 quid tibi, malum, hic ante aedis clamitatiost? |
an ruri censes te esse?, Cic. de Orat. 3.227 a principio clamare agreste quiddam est, and is
condemned as anti-social, alongside walking too fast, in D. 37.52 Nik»boulo
d ì p©jqon» ti, kaª tacw bad©zei kaª mga jqggetai, 45.77 täi tacw
bad©zein kaª lale±n mga oÉ tän eÉtucä pejuk»twn maut¼n kr©nw· j ì o³
gr oÉdn ÝjeloÅmeno lupä tina ktl.; cf. S. Halliwell in E. M. Craik (ed.),
‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on Classical Subjects presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford
1990) 70, J. Trevett, Apollodorus the Son of Pasion (Oxford 1992) 170–1, S. Vogt,
Aristoteles, Physiognomica (Darmstadt 1999) 94–5. meglhi t¦i jwn¦i recurs in
VI.7, 10 (both passages spurious). For lale±n, Introd. Note to VII.
209
COMMENTARY
3 kaª to± mn j©loi kaª o«ke©oi pite±n: ‘friends and family’, as XXVIII.6
(XVIII.7n.). For the single article see on I.5 kaª pr¼ toÆ ktl.
pr¼ d toÆ aËtoÓ o«kta nakoinoÓqai perª tän meg©twn: conven-
tional wisdom dictates that slaves are not to be trusted (Dover, Greek Popular
Morality 114–15). In Men. Georg. 55–8 a farmer’s o«ktai, who are foreign, tell
him to go to hell when he falls ill. Contrast Col. 1.8.15 in ceteris seruis haec fere
praecepta seruanda sunt, quae me custodisse non paenitet, ut rusticos, qui modo non incom-
mode se gessissent, saepius quam urbanos familiarius adloquerer . . . iam illud saepe facio, ut
quasi cum peritioribus de aliquibus operibus nouis deliberem. For nakoinoÓqai, XII.2.
For perª tän meg©twn (a common expression) in similar connections, e.g. Th.
3.42.1 perª tän m- bouleÅeqai, Antipho 6.45 piyhj©zwn kaª lgwn gnÛma
perª tän m-, Aeschin. 1.188 toÅtwi perª tän m- diapiteÅomen;, Isoc. 8.55
perª tän m- umboÅloi.
kaª to± par ì aËtäi rgazomnoi miqwto± n gräi: for the word order,
XXX.9n.; aËtäi, I.2n. Whether the hired workers are freemen or someone
else’s slaves is unclear: M. H. Jameson, CJ 73 (1977) 122–45, id. in B. Wells
(ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece (Stockholm 1992) 142–3, R. Osborne, Demos: the
Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge 1985) 143–4, E. M. Wood, Peasant-Citizen
and Slave (London and New York 1988) 64–80, 173–80, R. Brock, CQ 44 (1994)
342, Lane Fox 131.
pnta t p¼ t¦ kklh©a dihge±qai: cf. VII.7; for p», II.10n.
4 kaª nabeblhmno nw toÓ g»nato kaqiznein: the verb nablleqai

describes the method by which the ¬mtion or cla±na was put on, ‘throw one’s
cloak up or back, throw it over the shoulder, so as to let it hang in folds’ (LSJ b.iii; Stone,
Costume 155–6, Geddes 312–13, Dunbar on Ar. Au. 1567–9, MacDowell on D.
19.251). Perfect nabeblhmno means ‘clad (in an ¬mtion)’, as D. 19.251,
and (with t¼ ¬mtion added) XXVI.4 (cf. Luc. Alex. 11 ¬mtion . . . leuk¼n
nabeblhmno).27 An ¬mtion of normal length reached the calves but not the
ankles. An ankle-length ¬mtion is a mark of affectation (D. 19.314; cf. Plu. Alc.
1.7 = Archipp. 48, Kassel and Austin on Eup. 104.3). To wear an abnormally
short ¬mtion is the mark of a penny-pincher (epil. X joroÓnta lttw
tän mhrän t ¬mtia), a pro-Spartan (Pl. Prtg. 342c brace©a nabol
joroÓin), or an ascetic philosopher (Ath. 565e tribwnria periball»menoi
27 So does present naballomnh at Ar. Ec. 97. A woman dressed as a man is in danger of
revealing too much if she climbs over men in the Assembly to get a seat. She is simply
‘dressed in an ¬mtion’, not (as usually interpreted) ‘hitching up her dress’ (for which
the right verb is natlleqai, as Ec. 268). The ¬mtion is a loose fit. If (the passage
continues) the women get themselves seated before the men arrive, they can escape
detection by pulling their cloaks tightly around them (xuteilmenai qa«mtia). If the
present surprises, read nabalomnh. See XIX.6n.
210
mikr). A standing figure wearing a normal-length ¬mtion is illustrated by M.

Robertson, A History of Greek Art (Cambridge 1975) figs. 161 a–b. The *groiko
is not wearing too short a cloak: nw toÓ g»nato is to be taken proleptically
with kaqiznein. When he sits, he fails to pull down his cloak below his knees.
This, not a short cloak, is the mark of groik©a. His deportment is illustrated
by a figure on the ‘Gotha cup’ reproduced in the Leipzig ed. (1897) Abb. 2
( J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford 2 1963) 20, Corpus Vasorum
Antiquorum, Gotha 1 (Berlin 1964) 54 and fig. 43.1, J. Boardman, Athenian Red
Figure Vases: The Archaic Period (London 1975) fig. 51.1). This deportment incurs
the charge of groik©a in Philetaer. 18 mjibllou juro± (Naber: trnoi
jro uel sim. codd.)· oÉ kaqei, tlan, | mhd ì gro©kw nw g»nato
mjxei;.28 Correct deportment is illustrated by the seated figures in Robertson,
figs. 161 c–d. Philip of Macedon, netalmnwi täi citäni kaqmeno oÉk
eÉprepä, is admonished “mikr¼n . . . katwtrw tn clamÅda po©hon·
chmone± gr oÌtw kaqmeno” (Plu. 178d). The dying Caesar adjusted his
toga: Suet. Jul. 82. 2 sinistra manu sinum ad ima crura deduxit, quo honestius caderet
etiam inferiore corporis parte uelata (like Polyxena, E. Hec. 569–70, Ov. Met. 13.479).
Cf. Ar. Nu. 973–4.
kaqiznein is rare in classical prose, seldom with humans as subject ([Arist.]
Pr. 885 b 35 (kaq©zouin Bekker), 886a 1 (u.l. kaqzoui)), elsewhere birds (Arist.
HA 593 b 10, 601 a 7, 614 a 28, 617 b 1, 619b 8, PA 694 a 21) or bees (Isoc. 1.52). The
much commoner kaq©zein, which appears at XVIII.3, was proposed here by
Edmonds 1908.
[ãte t gumn aÉtoÓ ja©neqai]: ‘so that his naked parts are revealed’
is not acceptable, since t gumn cannot stand for t a«do±a. No emenda-
tion is convincing: g»nima Reiske 1748 (Briefe 316, 319), 1749 (Briefe 360), 1757,
gu±a Bernhard 1749 (ap. Reiske (1783) 362), gumn <a«do±a> Schneider, t
<ktw> gumn Meineke. The words are a pedantic gloss: ãte introduces
comparable interpolations at XIX.4, XX.9. For Ëpoja©neqai (c) see the Intro-
duction, p. 40.
5 kaª p ì llwi mn mhdenª <mte eÉjra©neqai> mte kpltteqai n ta±

¾do±: it is far less effective to delete mte (Ussing before Pasquali) than to
supply a second mte and infinitive. eÉjra©neqai (Kassel ap. Stein) has the
28 juro± gives perfect sense (Kassel and Austin obelize). I assume that the person
addressed is wearing a normal-length ¬mtion and is seated. If he were wearing a
thigh-length cloak, he could not, even seated, cover his ankles. If he were standing,
he would not be told to cover them. A woman, by contrast, might incur the charge
of groik©a for failing to wear ankle-length dress: Sapph. 57 LP t© d ì gro¹wti
qlgei n»on . . . gro¹wtin pemmna p»lan . . . oÉk pitamna t brke ì lkhn
pª tÜn jÅrwn;.
211
COMMENTARY
edge on ¤deqai (Stein), either of which is far better than qaumzein (mhdenª
<qaumzein> de; mte <qaumzein> ed. pr.; mhdenª <mte qaumzein> Ast),
which is too close in sense to kpltteqai, and than pit¦nai (Latte ap.
Steinmetz) or j©taqai (Steinmetz), which offer a contrast with the following
thkÛ but do not consort well with kpltteqai. The same verbs are
paired in X. Eq.Mag. 8.19 ¾rä gr t pardoxa, £n mn gaq §i, mllon
eÉjra©nonta toÆ nqrÛpou, £n d dein, mllon kplttonta.
Âtan d dhi boÓn £ Ànon £ trgon thkÜ qewre±n: he is so narrow in his
interests and so insensible to his surroundings that, when he goes out into the
streets, nothing can capture his attention except the sight of a familiar farm
animal. He is like a spectator at a show (on qewre±n (VI.4, IX.5, XI.3, XIV.4)
and cognates, C. P. Bill, TAPhA 32 (1901) 196–24, H. Koller, Glotta 36 (1958)
273–86). Conversely, ‘Londoners so seldom get a chance of seeing lambs that
it was no wonder everyone stopped to look at them’ (Samuel Butler, The Way
of all Flesh (1903) ch. 26).
6 kaª proairän d ti k toÓ tamie©ou dein¼ jage±n: he does not wait to

get to the table but eats ‘while (in the process of) taking something from the
store-room’. Cf. Ar. Th. 419–20 tamieÓai kaª (Reiske: tamieÅeqai R) kaª
proairoÅai laqe±n (Scaliger: labe±n R) | ljiton laion o²non, Men. Sam.
229–30 e« t¼ tamie±on tucon e«elqÛn, Âqen | ple©w proairän ktl., Luc.
Rh.Pr. 17 kaqper k tamie©ou proairän, D.L. 4.59 peidn gr ti proloi
toÓ tamie©ou (LSJ proairw i). The spelling tamie©ou (tame©ou AB) is cited
from c2 (Marc. 513 (64 Wilson)) by Diels 1883 (wrongly, Stefanis tells me), from
Par. Maz. 4457 (49 Wilson) by Stefanis (1994a) 101, 118.
kaª zwr»teron pie±n: strictly ‘more pure’, ‘less diluted with water’ (e.g.
Antiph. 147, Ephipp. 10), but in effect ‘neat’ (in Hdt. 6.84.3 zwr»teron
pie±n is synonymous with krhtopo©h). The positive adj. is attested first
in Emp. B 35.15, the comparative earlier at H. Il. 9.203 zwr»teron d kraie,
where the sense was disputed by ancient critics, surprised by a request for
stronger wine. According to Ath. 423e–424a, T. in his Perª mqh (fr. 116
Wimmer, 574 Fortenbaugh) explained it not as kraton but as kekramnon,
comparing a version of the text of Emp. B 35.15 in which the words zwr
and krhta are opposed. See also Arist. Po. 1461 a 14–25 (with a different
text of Emp.), Plu. 677c–e; Fortenbaugh, Quellen 328–9. We may imagine
that he drinks straight from the wine-jar, just as he eats straight from the
store-room. To drink wine neat was regarded as characteristic of barbar-
ians (Hdt. loc. cit., Pl. Lg. 637e, Arnott on Alex. 9.3–4, Olson on Ar. Ach.
73–5, Dalby 353–4). Varying proportions of water and wine are prescribed:
Page, Sappho and Alcaeus 308, West on Hes. Op. 596, Arnott on Alex. 228.2,
Wilkins, Boastful Chef 216–18, J. H. Hordern, The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus
(Oxford 2002) 113.
212
7 kaª tn itopoi¼n peirän laqe±n: he makes a sexual assault on the bread-
maker (LSJ peirw a.iv.2), when his wife is not looking. laqe±n has point with
the wife as object (cf. Ar. Pax 1138–9 tn Qrittan kunän | t¦ gunaik¼
loumnh, Lys. 1.12), little or none with (the usual interpretation) the other
slaves. Aorist laqe±n may stand with present part. (KG 2.63–5), which will
represent a conative imperfect indic. (KG 1.141, 200, Goodwin §36, §140;
XIV.5n.). The text has been much emended, to no good effect: peinän
Darvaris, <m> laqe±n Meineke, peirn [laqe±n] Naber, plhg labe±n
Fraenkel and Groeneboom, perilabe±n Diels. Conjectures which remove the
inoffensive kita, so that laqe±n may be taken not with peirän but with
a following participle, produce nonsense: laqe±n katala c (Hottinger),
katola Madvig, katal©a Immisch 1923, katakul©a Navarre 1931 ,
kaqal©a Sicherl. For breadmakers, P. Herfst, Le travail de la femme dans la Grèce
ancienne (Utrecht 1922) 28, L. A. Moritz, Grain-Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity
(Oxford 1958) 35.
kit ì la met ì aÉt¦ <metr¦ai> to± ndon pi kaª aËtäi t
pitdeia: although T. uses e²ta six times in this work to link verbs (III.2n.),
kita is elsewhere regular enough (e.g. Pl. La. 179e, Ly. 223a, Lg. 905b, Antipho
5.38, D. 1.21, X. Cyr. 2.2.4), and there is no good reason to suspect it here. The
supplement <metr¦ai> (<metre±n> Casaubon, but aorist is desirable amid
this series of aorists) is commended by XXX.11 metre±n aÉt¼ to± ndon t
pitdeia. It is far better than the change of la to lai (also Casaubon),
since t pitdeia is a less natural object for this verb and the datives are less
naturally constructed with it. At XXX.11 personal measurement of rations is
a mark of a«crokrdeia. Here it is a further sign of what the man will get up
to when his wife is out of sight. It was the wife’s job, not his, to supervise the
breadmaker and to help the housekeeper measure out the rations (X. Oec. 10.10
uneboÅleuon aÉt¦i . . . pikyaqai . . . <tn> itopoi»n, parat¦nai d
kaª pometroÅhi t¦i tam©ai). F. Dirlmeier, Gnomon 26 (1954) 511, detects an
obscene joke in la (OLD ‘molo’ b), implausibly.
to± ndon recurs in XVI.10, XXX.11.
8 kaª ritän d ma to± Ëpozug©oi mbale±n <t¼n c»rton: there must
be a lacuna, because (i) mbale±n needs an object (Meier 1830 and Diels
1883 vainly understand riton as object), and (ii) the following sentence
needs at least a copula. mbale±n is ‘throw into the manger’: X. Cyr. 8.1.38
¯ppoi . . . ±ton nballe, 8.6.12 ¯ppoi . . . c»rton mbllete, Alex.
241.4 toÅtoi . . . tpitdei ì mbale±n, Plu. Eum. 9.7 to± ¯ppoi cil¼n
mbal»nta. The most suitable object is c»rton: X. Cyr. 8.6.12 (cited above),
Hdt. 5.16.4 to±i d ¯ppoii kaª to±i Ëpozug©oii parcoui c»rton «cqÓ,
9.41.2 e«enhne±cqai . . . c»rton to±i Ëpozug©oii, Plu. 178a (= 790b) c»rto
oÉk ti to± Ëpozug©oi. I prefer t¼n c»rton (ed. pr.) to c»rton (Navarre
213
COMMENTARY
1920): ‘their fodder’, as e.g. Arist. HA 605 a 28–9 t¼n c»rton e« mli bp-
tonte did»ain q©ein, Hp. Aër. 18.4 (2.68 Littré) Âon (sc. cr»non) n pocr¦i
aÉto±i to±i ktnein ¾ c»rto. What the ed. pr. actually has is mbale±n t¼n
c»rton kaª k»yanto tn qÅran, which is based on mbale±n tn qÅran kaª
k»yanto tn qÅran (d). So that t¼n c»rton is a (surprisingly good) conjec-
ture for tn qÅran. No other supplement appeals: tn Àluran (an abnormal
singular, based on tn qÅran in the recc.) M. Schmidt before Unger 1884,
pur»n or t¼n pur»n Zingerle 1888, cil»n Navarre 1924.
9 For comment on this scene see the Introduction, pp. 21 –2. With the situation
in general contrast Apollod.Com. 15.1 –5 e« o«k©an Âtan ti e«©hi j©lou, |
tin qewre±n, Nikojän, tn toÓ j©lou | eÎnoian eÉqÆ e«i»nta t qÅra. |
¾ qurwr¼ ¬lar¼ prät»n tin, ¡ kuÜn | hne kaª pro¦lqe.
kaª> t¦i qÅrai ËpakoÓai aÉt»: the door would normally be answered
by a slave (Olson on Ar. Ach. 395–6). For the construction, Men. Dysc. 493–4
t¦i qÅrai | Ëpakko(e) and (dat. of person) Ar. Ach. 405 (cf. V. 273), Pl. Cri. 43a.
Acc. tn qÅran (AB) is incredible (LSJ ËpakoÅw ii.1), even though it is attested
again (and again I change it to dat.) at XXVIII.3 aÉtaª tn qÅran tn aÎleion
ËpakoÅoui. The alternative is to add something in the lacuna to govern tn
qÅran: not simply < . . . kaª k»yanto> (d), since gen. absolute with indefinite
subject unexpressed would be anomalous (XIV.7n.), but possibly < . . . ka©
tou k»yanto> or better < . . . kaª k»yant» tino> (like XIV.13 lgont»
tino, XVII.9 jant» tino), both proposed by Herwerden before Cobet
1874, or < . . . kaª k»yanti> (see on II.2 ma poreuomnwi) or < . . . kn
k»yhi ti>. Less likely < . . . par> (Diels). For the corruption (p- for Ëp-
AB), VII.7n.
kaª t¼n kÅna prokalemeno: Hes. Op. 604–5 advises the farmer to keep
a dog for security; similarly Var. R. 1.19.3, Cato Agr. 124, Verg. G. 3.404–8, Col.
7.12.1 –7. Other domestic guard-dogs: H. Il. 22.69, Od. 7.91 –4, A. Ag. 607, 896,
Ar. V. 957, Lys. 1213–15, Th. 416–17, Theoc. 15.43, 21.15, Antip.Sid. AP 5.30.4
(Gow-Page, Garland of Philip 106); cf. XIV.5, XXIX.5, S. Lilja, Dogs in Ancient
Greek Poetry (Helsinki 1976), Index s.u. ‘Watchdogs’, C. Mainoldi, L’image du loup
et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne (Paris 1984) 152–4. For kuÛn masc., V.8n.
kaª pilab»meno toÓ çÅgcou: this is still a recognised way of preventing
a dog from barking and biting. Here it is a crudely dramatic gesture, designed
to make a point (Introduction, p. 21). çÅgco, of a dog, only Theoc. 6.30;
properly of swine (Ath. 95D, S Ar. Ach. 744, Au. 347), but applied to other
beasts and even birds (Headlam on Herod. 5.41).
e«pe±n “OÕto julttei t¼ cwr©on kaª tn o«k©an”: there is something
of the same proudly defiant tone in Clytemnestra’s lgoimì n ndra t»nde
tän taqmän kÅna (A. Ag. 896). Trimalchio, with equal bombast, Scylacem iussit
adduci ‘praesidium domus familiaeque’ (Petr. 64.7). This passage is often assumed
214
to be a deliberate imitation of T. (Introduction, p. 26). For all the similarity of

language, the situation is different: the dog is summoned not to the door but to
the dinner table. I warn against Edmonds 1908, who adds <tiän> (absolute;
II.10n.) before t¼n kÅna, and supposes that the man makes an unseemly show
of the dog while giving a dinner party. This was prompted by the epitome M
(kaª q©onta pilabqai toÓ çÅgcou kun»). I assume that q©onta reflects
ritän: M ignores everything else between pie±n and kaª t¼n kÅna.
cwr©on is ‘land’, ‘landed property’, ‘estate’ (Pritchett 268–9).
10 His fault lies not in testing the coin but in the reason which he gives for reject-
ing it. Silver coinage was regularly tested by professionals: rgurognÛmone
or dokimata© ([Pl.] Virt. 378e, Arist. Rh. 1375 b 5, Moer. a 114 (p. 80 Hansen),
AB 89.7). Banks offered this service: Men. fr. 804.7–8 pª trpezan . . . jrein
tn pro±c ì ¯na | e« trgÅrion kal»n ti dokimat dhi; Bogaert, Banques
et banquiers 45–6, id., ‘L’essai des monnaies dans l’antiquité’, RBN 122 (1976)
5–34, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 216. A law of 375/4 (SEG 26 (1976–7) no.
72) provided for public slaves as dokimata© in the agora and Piraeus. Under
this law, refusal to accept a silver coin verified by the tester became a pun-
ishable offence. See R. S. Stroud, Hesperia 43 (1974) 157–88 (the ed. pr.); for
subsequent bibliography, K. M. W. Shipton, CQ 47 (1997) 408.
kaª [t¼] rgÅrion d par tou labÜn podokimzein: rgÅrion is ‘a
silver coin’ (LSJ i.1) rather than collectively ‘coinage, money’ (LSJ i.2, as
XIV.8, XVII.9, XVIII.3, 5, XXI.5). In either case the article is impossible (t¼
rgÅrion XVII.9, XVIII.3 is ‘his/their money’; similarly t¼ cru©on XXIII.8).
Its omission by the ed. pr. (which also omits ka©) is probably fortuitous. Other
interpolated articles at X.3, XVI.2 (Vac? ), XVIII.2, XXVIII.4, perhaps VI.7
(A). rgur©dion (Cobet 1874) is needless.
lambnwn (c) is not supported by XIV.8 polambnwn rgÅrion. There a
present part. is needed (witnesses are summoned in the course of the transaction);
here he takes possession of the money before rejecting it. For podokimzein,
X. Oec. 19.16 r ì oÔn . . . perª rgur©ou rwtän n e, p»teron kal¼n £
oÎ, duna©mhn n e pe±ai Þ p©taai diadokimzein t kal kaª t k©b-
dhla rgÅria;, Arist. HA 491 a 20–1 t nom©mata pr¼ t¼ aËto± katoi
gnwrimÛtaton dokimzouin, D. 35.24 d»kimon (of rgÅrion), Pl. Lg. 742a
d»kimon (of n»mima), and (in the coinage law cited above) dokimat. Fur-
ther, on dokimzein and cognates, T. V. Buttrey in O. Mørkholm and N. M.
Waggoner (edd.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honour of Margaret
Thompson (Wetteren 1979) 38, id. Quaderni Ticinesi di Numismatica e Antichità Clas-
siche 10 (1981) 84–8, 94, L. Kurke, Coins, Bodies, Games and Gold: The Politics of
Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton 1999) 309–16.
l©an <gr> molubr¼n e²nai: he rejects the coin because, having less
experience of traffic in silver than city-dwellers, he expects silver to look like
215
COMMENTARY
silver. He is concerned about the colour of his money, like the Mikrojil»timo
(XXI.5), but for a different reason: naiveté, not vanity. He does not know that
discoloured silver may look like lead. Silver, in fact, is produced from lead ore
by smelting: C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall (edd.), A History of Techno-
logy 1 (Oxford 1954) 582–5, R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology 8 (Leiden
1964) 193–259, J. Ramin, La technique minière et métallurgique des Anciens (Coll.
Latomus 153, Brussels 1977) 145–58, J. F. Healy, Mining and Metallurgy in the
Greek and Roman World (London 1978) 157–8, C. E. Conophagos, Le Laurium
antique et la technique grecque de la production de l’argent (Athens 1980). The coin
looks like lead: he demands a coin that looks like silver. This is the simplest
explanation. Alternatively, he suspects that the coin is a silver-lead alloy (D.
24.214 rgur©wi . . . kaª janerä pr¼ calk¼n kaª m»lubdon kekramnwi,
never a genuine issue at Athens; Lap. 46 katcalkon cru¼n kaª rguron,
gold-bronze and silver-bronze alloys) or lead with silver-plating (what the law
of 375/4 calls Ëpom»lubdon). Such a silver-plated coin might be a forgery
(Hdt. 3.56.2 gold-plated lead; Stroud 172) or (in theory, at least) a genuine
issue, analogous to the silver-plated bronze issued when silver was scarce in
406/5 (Stroud 171, J. H. Kroll, GRBS 17 (1976) 329–41). But suspicion of
forgery or adulteration is too rational: the law of 375/4 shows that rational
suspicion must have been voiced frequently. We want an unreasonable quib-
ble, not the kind of thinking which would prompt an Athenian to consult the
dokimat.
molubr»n (an adj. attested only by Hsch. M 1591 molubr»n· t¼ moluboeid)
gives plausible sense, and is a plausible change for mn lupr»n (AB), in which
mn is no less faulty than lupr»n. Solitary mn is not supported by XXII.2 and
XXV.2, which are corrupt (see D. E. Eichholz, CR 2 (1952) 144–5, on mn at Lap.
55 and 69). <gr> (Eberhard 1865) introducing an explanatory clause with
infin. is a regular structure (II.2, VIII.7, 8, XIX.2, XX.9, XXIII.5, XXVI.5,
XXIX.4, 5; KG 2.544 Anmerk. 1). lgwn (Casaubon, for l©an mn or mn alone)
with infin. would be anomalous (I.6n.). No other adj. appeals: not lept»n
(Morel), improperly interpreted as ‘underweight’, either ‘par suite d’usure’
(Navarre) or because it is silver-plated bronze (G. Stégen, Latomus 25 (1966)
310),29 lepr»n Casaubon (in the copy of his 1599 edition in the British Library:
Introduction, p. 54 n. 172) before Duport (‘scaly’ is an odd condition for a coin),
lgwn m (di t¼ m Petersen) lampr»n Darvaris, mudr»n Hartung, leur»n
Jebb, çupar»n Cichorius (a countryman, of all people, has no cause to reject
a ‘dirty’ coin), l©pon Fraenkel and Groeneboom.
kaª teron ntalltteqai: present infin. (‘he tries to get in exchange’)
reflecting conative present or imperfect indic. (KG 1.140–1, 193, Goodwin
29 This adj. (and noun lept»n) came to be used of ‘small’ coins (LSJ i.6, iii.2, E. Babelon,
Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines 1 (Paris 1901) 465–7). Juv. 9.31 tenue argentum (silver
plate) is irrelevant.
216
§25, §36, §119). nt- for m- (AB) Nauck 1863, before Herwerden 1871 (mì
nt-) and Cobet 1874.
11 kaª n twi rotron crhi £ k»jinon £ drpanon £ qÅlakon: loan of

domestic objects, a frequent theme in the sketches, was commonplace in Athe-
nian society (Millett, Lending and Borrowing ch. 2, esp. 37–9, with 258 n. 23).
e« (om. B) . . . crhen (AB) would be a highly irregular use of aor. indicative
in a conditional protasis. There are 24 instances of the expected n (or n)
with subjunctive (II.4n). t¼ r- (AB) is acceptable in itself (‘his plough’), but
the article unbalances the series of nouns, as does ti (M); twi restores balance.
For qÅlako, XVI.6n.
taÓta t¦ nukt¼ kat grupn©an namimnhk»meno < . . .: toÓto
(Edmonds 1929) is plausible, since the items are more naturally regarded
individually than en bloc (contrast IX.7). It is usually assumed that a verb
meaning ‘he demands back’ is required. So <paite±n> (before taÓta)
Casaubon, (after nukt») Reiske 1749 (Briefe 360), 1757, (after taÓta) Blaydes,
<pait¦ai> (before taÓta) Steinmetz, <xaite±n> (after nukt») Foss 1834,
<paite±n pª tn o«k©an> (after na-) Pasquali, <nat paite±n> (after
na-) Navarre 1920, <nat xinai zhtän> (after na-) Edmonds 1929
(based vainly on e ti crhen zhte±n parkairon M), a«te±n for taÓta Ast,
paite±n (or kraugai or krxai) for taÓta Birt (Kritik und Hermeneutik 145).
But to demand back a borrowed object in the middle of the night is unchar-
acteristically troublesome behaviour. <zhte±n> after nukt» (Edmonds and
Austen), a nocturnal search for the borrowed object, to see if it has been
returned, is strangely obsessive. namimnkeqai (Lycius before Pauw) and
<ke±qai> (Ussher) have insufficient point. taÓt ì <lg¦ai> (Gaiser) has
more.
12 kaª n balane©wi d iai, kaª e« t Ëpodmata d ¤lou gkroÓai:

these two clauses cannot stand where transmitted, after poke©raqai. They
interrupt the narrative: t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ refers to katab and must follow
directly after it. Further, they would have to be constructed with boÅletai:
and ‘he says that he wishes to sing in the baths’ is unacceptable. Since the two
clauses are inseparable, they must both be either deleted (Diels) or transposed.
Deletion is unwelcome: these traits suit the man. Schneider placed them at the
end of the sketch. But in style and content (brief coordinated clauses, expressing
two separate traits) they are an unwelcome appendage to the leisurely and
coherent narrative of the visit to town, which is a far more satisfying conclusion.
Meier 1850/1 placed them in the opening sentence (§2 me©zw toÓ pod¼ t
Ëpodmata jore±n <kaª e« t Ëpodmata d ¤lou gkroÓai> kaª meglhi
t¦i jwn¦i lale±n <kaª n balane©wi d iai>), ruinously. Stein endorses
a suggestion of Kassel that the words began life as a marginal addition by
217
COMMENTARY
T. himself. This I cannot believe (I.2n.). I have placed them before the visit to
town. The dislocation may be connected with the loss of an infin. at the end of
the preceding sentence: the infin. and these words accidentally omitted, then
added in the margin, then the infin. lost when the words were restored in the
wrong place. For successive clauses beginning with kaª . . . d, II.4, XI.5–7,
XX.10, XXIX.4–5.
Singing in the public baths is anti-social: Artem. 1.76 idein n balane©wi
oÉk gaq»n, Hor. S. 1.4.74–6 in medio qui | scripta foro recitent sunt multi quique
lauantes: | suaue locus uoci resonat conclusus, Sen. Ep. 56.2 cui uox sua in balineo placet,
Petr. 73.3 inuitatus balnei sono diduxit usque ad cameram os ebrium et coepit Menecratis
cantica lacerare.
¤lou gkroÓai evokes the krhp©, studded with nails (II.7n., Gow on
Macho 13ff., O. Lau, Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in der griechisch-römischen Literatur
und Kunst (Bonn 1967) 91 –4). Examples of such hobnailed sandals have been
found in graves (K. D. Morrow, Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture (Madison
1985) 195 n. 14). Theophrastus required his students to wear shoes, and these
‘unstitched and without nails’, Ëp»dhma cein, kaª toÓto kttuton, ¤lou
oÉk con (Teles ap. Stob. 4.33.31 = p. 40 Hense2 );30 Introd. Note to XXII ad
fin. Persons who demonstrate aÉtrkeia and eÉtleia by ¤lwn mpiplnte
t kattÅmata elicit scorn (Ath. 565e). Cf. XXII.11.
13 kaª e« tu kataba©nwn: cf. Hdt. 5.29.2, Pl. Thg. 121 d, Isoc. 7.52, [Arist.]
Ath. 16.5. The prefix kata- indicates that Athens stands between his home and
the sea (LSJ kataba©nw i.2).
rwt¦ai t¼n pantänta p»ou §an a¬ dijqrai kaª t¼ trico: ‘what
the price was (when he was in the market)’. But e«©n (Cobet 1874), ‘what the
price is (currently)’, would be more natural (for the confusion, Diggle, Euripidea
455–6). Prices of certain commodities may fluctuate with supply (Millett, ‘Sale,
credit and exchange’ 193). dijqrai are hides of goatskin, worn by rustics
(Ar. Nu. 72, Men. Dysc. 415, Epit. 229–30, 328; R. Renehan, Greek Lexicographical
Notes (Göttingen 1975) 69, Stone, Costume 166–7). trico is fish preserved
by drying, smoking, or pickling, generally tunny or mackerel, a byword for
cheapness (Ar. V. 491), its vendor held in disrespect (Pl. Chrm. 163b, R. I. Curtis,
Garum and Salsamenta (Leiden 1991) 153); Orth, ‘Kochkunst’, RE xi.1 (1921)
951 –2, Olson on Ar. Pax 563, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.17 and Archestr.
39.1 –2, Pellegrino 208, Dalby 95–6. Cf. VI.9.
kaª e« tmeron ¾ rcwn noumhn©an gei: the first of the month (noumh-
n©a) was a holiday, celebrated with religious rites (Ar. V. 96, D. 25.99,
Theopomp.Com. 48, Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 344 (quoted on XVI.10
30 I see no cause to delete ¤lou oÉk con (Diels, Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta (Berlin
1901) 212), followed by Hense.
218
gorai ktl.); Hdt. 6.57.2 (Sparta); ¬erwtth ¡merän Plu. 828a) and fes-
tivities of various kinds (Ar. Ach. 999, Antipho fr. 57 Thalheim (cf. Ael. NA
5.21), Lys. fr. 53.2 Thalheim (XXVII.11 n.)), and it was a market-day (Ar. Eq.
43–4, V. 169–71, Alciphr. 3.25.2); M. P. Nilsson, Die Entstehung und religiöse Bedeu-
tung des griechischen Kalenders (Lund 1918) 36–7, id. ‘Noumhn©a’, RE xvii.2 (1937)
1292–4, J. D. Mikalson, HThR 65 (1972) 291 –6. Since the Athenian year con-
sisted of only 354 days, with six months of 29 days and six of 30, the ‘new-moon
day’ would not always coincide with the appearance of a new moon, even if
the months were reckoned by the lunar calendar alone. But Athenian life
was articulated by its festivals, and there was a separate ‘festival’ calendar,
regulated by the archons. The lunar and festival calendars were sometimes
discrepant. Discrepancies were inconvenient, and we hear complaints: Ar.
Nu. 615–26, Pax 414–15. On these and related issues see W. K. Pritchett and
O. Neugebauer, The Calendars of Athens (Cambridge Mass. 1947), B. P. Meritt,
The Athenian Year (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1961) esp. ch. 2 (‘The First of the
Month’), Pritchett, Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone (Berkeley and Los Angeles
1963) esp. 313–14, 344–8, A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucy-
dides 3 (Oxford 1956) 713–15, 4 (1970) 264–5, A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman
Chronology (Munich 1972) esp. 52–5, 57–8, J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil
Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975) esp. 14–15, A. G. Woodhead, The
Study of Greek Inscriptions (Cambridge 2 1981) 117–22, Pritchett, Athenian Calendars
and Ekklesias (Amsterdam 2001) esp. ch. 4. The official noumhn©a was deter-
mined by the archons, and private citizens would need notice of the date (Gow
on Macho 121 ff., Pritchett (1963) 347, (2001) 35–6). In Th. 2.28 an event is
dated noumhn©ai kat elnhn: evidence not that the official first of the month
was out of line with the moon at the time, but evidence that all knew that it
might be.
rcwn (Reiske 1747, 1749, 1753 (Briefe 360, 481) before Darvaris)31 for gÛn
(AB) restores sense economically: an anticipatory error (rcwn . . . gei =
gÜn . . . gei), like epil. X mhrän (mikrän AB) . . . mikrän (for further
illustration see on periÛn below, H. Richards, Notes on Xenophon and Others
(London 1907) 307–11, Diggle, Euripidea 288, 428, 469–70). gein can mean
‘hold or celebrate’ a festival and ‘keep’ a date (LSJ a.iv.1 –2, West on Hes. Op.
768). The archon, who fixes the date and presumably presides over public
ceremonies (D. 25.99), can reasonably be said noumhn©an gein. There are
many other conjectures, none plausible: e.g. *lkwn or QamÛ (names of the
barber) Reiske 1757, pantän (as a gloss) or *gnwn Coray, ¡ gor Werle
(with this question transposed before the preceding one), goranomän Holland
1897, ¾ gÛn, <kaª e«> Diels (it is not clear what the *groiko would mean
31 The conjecture is sometimes ascribed to Bloch, through misreading of Ussing, who

ascribes it to ‘Blachius nostras, olim rector Aarhusiensis scholae’, i.e. H. H. Blache.
219
COMMENTARY
by ‘the agon’). Ast deleted ¾ gÛn, understanding ¾ pantän as subject of

gei. Edmonds 1929 and Rusten also delete, taking gei as impersonal, a
construction which gains no support from the corrupt Archil. 255 West. In
any case, there was no motive for so meaningless an interpolation. For the
spelling tmeron (- AB), III.3n.
kaª e«pe±n Âti boÅletai eÉqÆ katab poke©raqai: ‘immediately on
arrival’, like VIII.2 eÉqÆ panta, and (eÉqÆ before the part.) HP 3.5.1,
CP 1.9.3, 3.22.2, 4.6.5, Sens. 48, Vent. 5, Sud. 1 (KG 2.82 Anmerk. 4, LSJ
eÉqÅ b.ii.1). eÉqÅ with e«pe±n (AB) has no point (kaª <n j¦i>, e«pe±n eÉqÅ
(Edmonds 1929) barely gives it one); and it has less point before boÅletai
(Meier 1850/1) than before katab (Casaubon before Foss 1858, Cobet 1874).
In VIII.2 the evidence of P suggests that AB have again misplaced the word.
For poke©raqai, V.6n.; for the corruption (po- d: Ëpo- AB), II.3, XXX.11.
I doubt whether the timing of his haircut has any connection with the later
superstitious belief that hair should be cut at the turn of the month (W. H.
Roscher, Philologus 57 (1898) 213–19).
kaª t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ periÛn: for t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ, Ar. Pax 1155, Antipho
1.16, Nicostr.Com. 20.1, PCG adesp. 1093.185, Aristid. 2.373 Jebb (2.502
Dindorf), Lib. Ep. 652.2, 1282.2 (KG 1.384–5, Schwyzer 2.112). periÛn is
‘going round (the shops in the gor)’, as D. 19.229 p»rna g»raze kaª
«cqÓ periÛn (u.l. periiÛn), Antiph. 275 nÓn de± peri»nta pperi kaª karp¼n
bl©tou | zhte±n, Pl.Com. 211 kaª periÛn (Meineke: periiÛn codd.: pariÛn
Casaubon) g ì ma | tilt¼n trico primhn to± o«ktai, Pherecr. 13 kaª
t balnou kaª t kÅlou kaª t crda peri»nta; similarly Ar.
Lys. 557–8 kn ta±i cÅtrai kn to± lacnoiin ¾mo©w | perircontai
kat tn gorn, Eup. 327.2 peri¦lqon (u.l. par-) t k»roda kaª t
kr»mmua ktl., Timocl. 11.8; see on XXI.8 kat tn gorn peripate±n.
I substitute periÛn for pariÛn (AB), which would most naturally mean ‘as
he goes by’ (Jebb), ‘im Vorbeigehn’ (Meister), like XVI.5 (‘going by’, sc. the
crossroads). But ‘to get from Archias as he goes by (Archias’s shop)’ reads
oddly. Casaubon (followed by Cobet 1874) deleted pariÛn as superfluous;
but there was no motive for interpolation. periÛn is corrupted to pariÛn
at VI.4; cf. XIII.11 (peri- B: par- A), XVI.3. The following par ì would
make corruption even easier: pariÜn . . . par ì like XXV.4 Ëp¼ (pr¼c V)
t¼ prockejlaion, XXVII.10 ½coÅmeno (katoc- V) . . . katag¦nai.
See on rcwn above. For the spelling periÛn (attested at V.10 by P),
LSJ per©eimi (init.).32
32 The same change is needed in Chariton 2.1.6 pariÜn (periiÜn Abresch, periÜn
Naber) d toÆ Milh©wn limna panta kaª t trapza kaª tn p»lin Âlhn.
W. E. Blake (Oxford 1938) defends pariÛn by reference to 8.1.6 pari»nti . . . tn
gorn (quite different); G. P. Goold (Loeb ed. 1995) translates it as if it were peri(i)Ûn
(‘though he went round’).
220
kom©aqai par ì ìArc©ou toÓ tar©cou: Archias is a common name in

Attica (LGPN 2.70, J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens 3 (Toronto 1995) 369–79).
Use of the name implies a certain familiarity between customer and shopkeeper
(Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 191). Although toÆ tar©cou (AB) is
possible (masc. pl. Hdt. 9.120.1 –2, Crates Com. 19.2, Cratin. 44.1, Philippid.
34, Pl.Com. 4, Timocl. 16.5; cf. Kassel and Austin on Chionid. 5), neut. sing.
(as above) is far commoner, and the partitive gen. is apt (KG 1.345, Schwyzer
2.102–3). toÆ rr©cou (Stefanis 1997) has an unwanted article, which should
in any case be feminine.
221
V
T H E O B S E QU I O U S M A N
Introductory note
Aristotle defines rkeia in relation to a mean of jil©a (EN 1108a 26–30,
1127 a 6–10). The man who exceeds it is either k»lax or reko. The k»lax
bases his friendship on self-interest; the reko does not. See the Introd. Note
to II. At EN 1126b 12–14 rekoi are described as pnta pr¼ ¡donn pain-
oÓnte kaª oÉqn ntite©nonte ll ì o«»menoi de±n lupoi to± ntugcnouin
e²nai (‘complacently approving of everything and never raising objections, but
thinking it a duty to avoid giving pain to those with whom they come into
contact’); at 1171 a 15–17 polÅjiloi kaª pin o«ke©w ntugcnonte oÉdenª
dokoÓin e²nai j©loi pln politikä (‘they are promiscuous in friendship and
on familiar terms with all and real friends to no-one except on the political
level’). Aristotle also defines rkeia in relation to a mean of emn»th ‘dig-
nity’ (EE 1221 a 8, 27–8, 1233 b 34–8; cf. MM 1192 b 30–9, quoted in part below
under Definition). An excess of emn»th is rkeia, a deficiency is aÉqdeia
‘self-centredness’. The aÉqdh has no regard for others, on whom he looks
down; the reko devotes all his attention to another, and is inferior to all.
See the Introd. Note to XV.
The distinction which Theophrastus makes between the *reko and the
K»lax is true to Aristotle, in so far as the K»lax confines his flattery to a single
patron, from whom he may expect to derive some benefit, while the *reko
tries to please all, for no other motive than desire for popularity.
§§6–10 follow without a break, in the papyrus as well as in AB, but they
describe a different character, as Casaubon was first to see.33 He is a show-
off and spendthrift. He is obsessively preoccupied with his appearance (§6).
He frequents popular places where he may be seen (§7). He sends expensive
presents abroad and makes sure that everyone knows it (§8). He buys exotic
animals and eye-catching objets (§9). His private palaestra is a further excuse
for self-advertisement (§10). He resembles two types described by Aristotle: the
vulgar man (bnauo), who makes a tasteless display of his wealth, spending
too much on inappropriate occasions (EN 1123 a 19–27), and the vain man
(caÓno), who is ostentatious in dress and manner and wants others to see
and hear how well-off he is (1125 a 27–32). For an exhaustive discussion of the
differences between §§1 –5 and §§6–10 see Stein 117–21.
It is likely that §§6–10 are the latter part of a sketch whose beginning has
been lost. A similar accident accounts for the present state of XIX. Suggested
33 When Steinmetz and Stein claim that Casaubon was anticipated by C. Gesner, they
confuse him with J. M. Gesner (1734); Introduction, p. 52 n. 161.
222
V: T H E O B S E Q U I O U S M A N
subjects are: ìApeir»kalo or Bnauo (Casaubon), Megaloprep (Schnei-

der 1799 before Bloch), Fil»timo (Schneider 1799 before Darvaris). Ansoldo
Cebà (in his Italian translation, Genova 1620) suggested that §§6–10 belong
to XXI (the Mikrojil»timo); and several editors have placed them either
within or at the end of that sketch. But there is nothing petty about this man’s
ambitions. See Stein 120.
For P. Herc. 1457 and bibliography see p. 50. The papyrus has been examined
most recently by T. Dorandi and M. Stein, ZPE 100 (1994) 1 –16, and on my
behalf by Jeffrey Fish (see p. vii). By N I designate the (very unreliable) tran-
scription made by F. Casanova in 1812, when the papyrus was less damaged.
[1 ] Definition
The definition is based on [Pl.] Def. 415e kolake©a ¾mil©a ¡ pr¼ ¡donn neu
toÓ belt©tou, which in turn is based on Pl. Grg. 464e kolake©an mn oÔn aÉt¼
kalä . . . Âti toÓ ¡do toczetai neu toÓ belt©tou (H. G. Ingenkamp,
Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen (Wiesbaden 1967) 98). It is
inconceivable that Theophrastus should have based a definition of rkeia
on a definition of kolake©a. For this and other arguments against authenticity
see Stein 121 –3. It is uncertain whether the definition was in P. The few and
doubtful traces in col. vi lines 1 –4 which Kondo saw and believed compatible
with it are no longer visible.
ti mn: def. III n.
Þ Ârwi perilabe±n: def. I n.
nteuxi: again in def. XX (in def. XII nteuxi M for p©teuxi is wrong);
cf. XIX.4 (spurious) dunteukto. Not ‘manners, behaviour’ (LSJ 2.b) but
‘manner of encounter or converse’ (Rev. Suppl.), ‘contact’, somewhat like ¾mil©a
(def. II n.). Cf. [Arist.] MM 1192 b 30–5 emn»th d tin aÉqade©a n mon
te kaª reke©a, tin d perª t nteÅxei. Â te gr aÉqdh toioÓt»
tin o³o mhqenª ntuce±n mhd dialeg¦nai . . . ¾ d reko toioÓto o³o
pin ¾mile±n kaª pntw kaª pantac¦i; also ntugcnein in the passages of
Aristotle cited in the Introd. Note.
pª täi belt©twi: cf. [Isoc.] Ep. 4.6, Arr. An. 7.29.1, D.C. 38.25.2; KG
1.502–3, and on def. I propo©hi pª ce±ron.
¡don¦ parakeuatik: cf. def. XIX lÅph parakeuatik, XX
(nteuxi) lÅph poihtik.
2 [mlei] toioÓt» ti: I.2n., II.9n. It is uncertain whether P had mlei.

The supplement ] arek[o | amelei toiouto ti oio] | (Dorandi-Stein) is
the right length. But at the beginning of the second line Fish read . . . ] . [ . ]. . .
[, the first trace ‘small part of a vertical stroke’, then (after the gap) ‘a vertical
223
COMMENTARY
stroke followed by . or e. , followed by two traces at the top of the line, possibly
part of a single horizontal stroke’. This is not compatible with mlei. There
may have been a different introductory formula here, perhaps including ti.
p»rrwqen proagoreÓai: cf. Pl. Chrm. 153a-b ka© me Þ e²don . . . eÉqÆ
p»rrwqen pzonto llo lloqen, Men. Dysc. 104–6 poreu»mhn pr¼
aÉt»n· kaª pnu | p»rrwqen, e²na© ti jilnqrwpo j»dra | pidxi» te
boul»meno, proe±pa, Timocl. 23.5–7 pari»nta Fe©dippon pnu | . . . p»r-
rwqen pidÜn . . . | p»ppu ì , Plu. 62c ¾ . . . k»lax trcei katadiÛkei dex-
ioÓtai p»rrwqen, n (kn Hercher) proagoreuq¦i pr»teron ½jqeª polo-
ge±tai met martÅrwn kaª Ârkwn pollki, XV.3, XXIV.6. There is little
to choose between infin. proagoreÓai (P) and part. proagoreÅa (AB).
Aorist is the appropriate tense for this infin. (‘greet, address’), whereas present
is appropriate for those which follow (m jinai ‘be reluctant to release’;
palltteqai ‘begin to depart’, as VII.7, IX.4, XVI.5). For the distinction
between present and aorist infin. see on §6 pleitki . . . poke©raqai. On
the other hand, a series of participles is not out of place (cf. VIII.2, XIV.3,
XVI.2, XVIII.4, 7, XXI.11, XXV.5, XXVI.4, XXVII.9).
kaª ndra krtiton epa: For the accusative predicate, XXIX.4 t¼n
ponhr¼n . . . e«pe±n leÅqeron, LSJ e²pon ii.3. ‘Calling him nr krtito’
perhaps implies that he addressed him as (å) krtite or (å) krtite ndrän
(Pl. Grg. 515a å bltite ndrän, KG 1.338–9). LSJ krtito 2.a mis-
leadingly labels the phraseology here as ‘colloquial’. The word krtito
retained its Homeric association with gods and heroes: Pi. O. 14.14, Pae. 7b.50
(Zeus), N. 7.27 (Ajax), S. Ph. 3, E. Hel. 41 (Achilles), Gorg. Hel. 3 (Tyndareos)
ndrän krtito, Pal. 3 (Odysseus) krtito . . . nr. So too did the voca-
tive address: Ar. Pl. 230 å krtite PloÓte pntwn daim»nwn, PCG adesp.
1093.357 å krtite tän q. [eä]n. , S. OT 40 å krtiton pin O«d©pou kra
(cf. 1525 krtito §n nr, which however is spurious). When a man is so
addressed, the tone is elevated: Arist. fr. 44 Rose (p. 18 Ross) å krtite pn-
twn kaª makarit»tate (Silenus to Midas), Hegesipp.Com. 2.4 å krtit ì
nqrwpe kaª ojÛtate, TrGF 128 Ezechiel 243 krtite Mw¦. The voc.
became formulaic only in the Christian era: LSJ 2.b cites Luke 1.3 krtite
Qe»jile, to which add e.g. D.H. Orat. Vett. 1, Dem. 58, J. Ap. 1.1, Vit. 430, Gal.
10.34 Kühn, [Longin.] 39.1, Eus. PE 5.20.6. See Dickey, Greek Forms of Address
143, 281 –2, Lane Fox 143, 165 n. 168.
The form epa (P) is attested (or all but attested) at VII.3 (e: e²pa AB),
VII.7 (Needham: e²pa A, e²pen B), XVI.8 (epa V, epou Vc ), and is plausibly
restored at XXV.4 (Ilberg: e²pe V, ou s.l.), XXVIII.4 (Cobet: e²pen V? , epou
Vc ); e«pÛn (AB here) is attested (but should probably be changed to epa) at
XV.7 (AB), XXX.8 (AB: eper V). Common in Arist., epa is otherwise rare
in Attic before Theophrastus: Veitch 233–4, O. Lautensach, Die Aoriste bei den
attischen Tragikern und Komikern (Göttingen 1911 ) 112–13, KB 2.422–3, Schwyzer
224
1.745, Threatte 2.548–9, Kassel and Austin on Dionys.Com. 2.2. Add [D.]
(Apollod.) 59.5 (u.l. -Ûn). Note also XII.10 pe©paqai.
kaª qauma ¬kanä: in P Dorandi-Stein read qau. [m]a. . a. .p[ (‘im unteren
Bereich der Zeile zwei punktförmige Reste eines Buchstabens, danach ein
p’) and suggested .p[ª polÅ as a banalisation of ¬kanä. If e.p[ were rightly
read, .p[arkä (Stefanis 1994b) would be more likely. But Fish’s diagnosis
and transcript suggest rather qau[m]a. z. w. n. p[. After ]a. , ‘apparently horizontal
stroke at the top of the line, not very compatible with ’ (transcript suggests
it is compatible with top of Z). ‘After mutilated papyrus, part of a vertical
and other ink to the right, then a rather clear p. , though the right vertical
is faint.’ The ‘other ink’ shown on the transcript is the two ‘punktförmige
Reste’, and above the left of them the top of a stroke descending to the right:
the traces perfectly suit N. The preceding ‘part of a vertical’ appears (from
the transcript) compatible with the middle arm of w. Then e.g. p[olÅ (Th.
7.56.2 polÆ qaumaqeqai), but giving rather a short line (18 letters, against
a norm of 19–21), or p[nu polÅ (Pl. Alc.1 119c), p[oll, p[le±ta, p[eriä.
At all events, aorist part. is preferable, and ¬kanä unexceptionable (cf. Gal.
14.197 Kühn kaª toÓto d ì ¬kanä par ì n©oi qaumzetai, Philostr. VA 3.58
qaumaz»menon ¬kanä; H. Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical
Greek (Helsingfors 1954) §238, §409).
mjotrai ta± cerª peribalÜn m jinai: P confirms, what was
first suspected by Schneider, that AB have omitted a participle. Before
P was known, the following additions were proposed: labÛn or pi-
lab»meno Schneider 1799, lab»meno Schneider 1818, kataycwn Dar-
varis, peribalÛn Herwerden. In P Bassi read ce[r]. [i | lab]o. [me]n[o]
([ec]o[me]n[o] Navarre 1918), K. F. W. Schmidt cer. [i]n. epi|l. a. [bo]m. e. n. [o],
Kondo cer. []in. epi|[labome]n[o], Hammerstaedt and Dorandi (ap. Stein)
ce[r]i.n. | [. . . ]m. [. . . . ], whence Stein proposed [aya]m. [eno], comparing
XII.14 ½rch»meno yaqai trou mhdpw meqÅonto. Dorandi-Stein read
cer. . [i | . . . . . . ]l. [. . ] (or ]m. , ]d. , but not ]a. , ]n. ), and diffidently proposed the
unappealing aÉt¼n ]l. [Ûn] or labÜn Â]l. [w]. On the basis of Dorandi-Stein’s
reading Stefanis 1994b proposed periba]l. [wn] (already proposed as a supple-
ment by Herwerden). Fish read cer. . i.n. [ | (for i. n. , only ‘a speck mid-line, then
vertical’). The final n. , if rightly identified, need not entail a following initial
vowel, in view of §3 pretin b-. Fish then saw traces of several letters before
]l. [. On the basis of his description and transcript I identify p. e. r. [i]b. [a]l. [wn].
‘The first letter may have had a crossbar, and there is a speck of ink in the lower
left corner’ (p compatible with this). ‘The second letter may have had a curved
bottom, though this, too, is uncertain’ (e compatible). ‘This is followed by the
left side of an apparently (but not certainly) curved letter before a crack in the
papyrus’ (transcript shows what appears compatible with loop of r). ‘A space
may intervene before the next trace, clearly the bottom right part of a curved
225
COMMENTARY
letter. It is possible that the trace before the crack is the left half of this curved
letter. Whether it is or not, this letter, apparently the fourth of the line, will be
o, e, q, or w.’ (The transcript shows that it is compatible with the bottom right
curve of b, and that there is room before it for a lost i.) After a gap, ‘probably
l, but perhaps one of the humps of m. This l (or m) will have been about the
seventh letter of the line. Others seem to have mistaken this stroke for n. , a
reading certainly mistaken.’ For the expression cf. E. Or. 371 –2 ìOrthn . . .
j©laii cerª peribale±n, perhaps IT 796, TrGF adesp. 416 (Diggle, Euripi-
dea 465), Pl. Phdr. 256a peribllei t¼n ratn, X. An. 4.7.25 periballon
lllou, Men. Mis. 622 Arnott (221 Sandbach) t©na peribllein kaª jile±n
oÕto [doke±;, Pk. 156, 301, PCG adesp. 1014.44, 1017.27, D.H. 8.45.1 peri-
balÜn aÉtn pzeto, Plu. Eum. 10.8 ta± cerª t¼n EÉmen¦ peribalÛn,
Gell. 20.1.20 amplexus utraque manu.
This is not an ordinary handshake given as an initial greeting (e.g. Pl. Chrm.
153b ka© mou lab»meno t¦ ceir», ö W Ûkrate, § d ì Á ktl.). Nor is it
the sycophantic or overfamiliar hand-clasping of [X.] Ath. 1.18 ntibol¦ai
nagkzetai n to± dikathr©oi kaª e«i»nto tou pilambneqai t¦
ceir», Pl. Aul. 114–16 et me benignius | omnes salutant quam salutabant prius; | ad-
eunt, consistunt, copulantur dexteras, Hor. S. 1.9.3–4 accurrit quidam notus mihi nomine
tantum, | arreptaque manu ‘quid agis, dulcissime rerum?’ (what follows at 15–16 ‘usque
tenebo; | persequar hinc quo nunc iter est tibi’ may be compared with the following m
jinai kaª mikr¼n propmya), nor the warmly sympathetic double-handed
clasping of Plb. 31.24.9 lab»meno mjotrai cerª t¦ dexi aÉtoÓ kaª
pia mpaqä. He uses both hands, a sign of overfamiliarity indeed, but also
of disordered dress, for a man soberly wearing a ¬mtion must keep one hand
inside it (IV.4n., Aeschin. 1.25, Plu. Phoc. 4.3; Geddes 312–13, MacDowell
on D. 19.251). He embraces his victim with both arms, and will not release
him (LSJ j©hmi a.ii.1.b), because he wishes to delay his departure. Cf. Sittl,
Gebärden 27–32, Hug, ‘Salutatio’, RE i.2a (1920) 2062–3.
kaª mikr¼n propmya: mik[r]on [ . ] . . p. ro[pemya P. Bassi read ]p. e.
or ]g. e.. Kondo read the last letter as e, o, , or w. Hammerstaedt (ap. Stein)
identified two verticals (p rather than h) followed by o or , possibly e, not w,
and Fish concurs. []p. o. p. ro- (Stein) suits the traces. But such an unattested
and undesirable compound would have to be ascribed to Philodemus, not
Theophrastus, as Stein acknowledges; likewise [Ë]p. o. p. ro- (Dorandi-Stein).
Contrast VII.5 toÆ pinai jkonta . . . propmyai. We can rule out, as
incompatible with the traces, all other proposals: []ma Edmonds 1910, [t©]
ge Navarre 1920, []pipr- Immisch 1923, []ti Holland 1923 before Stark,
[oÌ]tw Kondo.
kaª rwta p»te aÉt¼n Àyetai painän palltteqai: in P, Dorandi-
Stein read po[, Fish po[ .(.) //au (‘au is found on a fragment now detached,
but I am confident about its placement, thanks partly to the photograph in
226
Bassi’s edition which was made when the fragment was still attached’). But
poteau[ N (the 1812 transcript), whence aÔqi Stefanis 1994b, like E. IA 1026
poÓ ì aÔqi ½y»meqa;. Àyetai is virtually ‘meet’ (LSJ edw a.1.b, Handley
on Men. Dysc. 305 (add Asp. 212, Pk. 159), Introd. Note to VII ad fin.). painän
(P, coni. Needham) is the obvious replacement for ti a«nän (AB); and ti
painän (de), while pointed enough (‘with compliments still on his lips’), is
unlikely to be right.
3 kaª paraklhqeª d pr¼ d©aitan m m»non æi preti: kai para[kl]h. qei.[

(de) pro] | diaita[n c. vii ] . . [ c. iii–v] | paret[ P. Perhaps d was omitted;
otherwise col. vi line 14 (24 letters) would be much longer than the preceding
lines (19–21 letters). But there was more than m m»non æi in P. N shows a
detached fragment (now lost) which came from the gap in col. vi lines 12–17.
In this line it has ]or[, in the next ]inboule[. The o of or stands above the
e.34 If R is a misreading of N (as Dorandi-Stein suggest), the line may have
begun (like AB) diaita[n mh monon]. After this, Fish saw traces of 2 or 3
letters, the last compatible with n. K. F. W. Schmidt claimed to read (from a
photograph) diaita[n mh] m. [ono]n. t. o. u. t. w. i. w. i. paret[in. But toÅtwi, even if
written, is unlikely to be right. Theophrastus either omits the demonstrative
pronoun with the relative (I.4, XI.3, XII.10, XIII.2, XVIII.6; XIII.5, cited by
Stein, is different) or places it after the relative (III.2n.).
The verb pare±nai is regularly used of supporters at law or of witnesses
(XII.5, LSJ i.4); in connection with arbitration, XII.13 parÜn dia©thi, [D.]
(Apollod.) 59.48 o¬ par»nte katrwi pª t¦i dia©thi.
¯na koin» ti e²nai dok¦i: ‘an impartial arbitrator’. For a private arbitration
the disputants might choose an equal number of arbitrators separately, and
jointly a further arbitrator ‘common’ to them both: D. 33.14 pitrpouin nª
mn diaitht¦i koinäi . . . , na d ì ktero parekaq©ato, [D.] (Apollod.) 59.45
Ëpr mn toÓ Frun©wno diaitht kaqzeto turo ìAlwpek¦qen . . . Ëpr
d tejnou toutouª aur©a LampreÅ · koin¼n d aËto± proairoÓntai
Dioge©tona ìAcarna (Kapparis ad loc., B. Hubert, De Arbitris Atticis et privatis
et publicis (Leipzig 1885) 9–10, MacDowell, Law 203–6). He does not wish to
seem to be the agreed ‘common’ arbitrator. He wishes to be seen to be impar-
tial, behaviour appropriate for the common arbitrator but not for him. For
koin» ‘impartial’ see also Lys. 15.1 perª tän t¦ trate©a grajän koinoÆ
e²nai täi te diÛkonti kaª täi jeÅgonti, D. 18.7 on kaª koin¼n mjotroi
kroatn (Wankel ad loc.), 41.14 tän koinän mjotroi kaª j©lwn Àntwn,
55.35 pitrpein to± e«d»in, <to±> oi kaª koino±; LSJ a.iv.3. koin¼
34 And below ]lh[ in the line above. Dorandi-Stein relate this to paraklhqei. But ]gqe
in the transcript of the non-detached portion perhaps represents ]hqei; in this case
]dh[ will be a misreading of ]kl[.
227
COMMENTARY
e³ (AB) is not an acceptable expression. koin¼ without e³ (d) is acceptable.
But ti must be right: conjectured by Pauw, it was once visible in P (ti N,
t. [i Bassi; Dorandi-Stein saw no trace, but Fish’s transcript shows a high dot,
seemingly more compatible with the left tip of t than the top of e); cf. VI.2,
XXVIII.4, KG 1.663, Schwyzer 2.215, LSJ ti a.ii.7, Hindenlang 63.
4 kaª <pr¼> toÆ xnou d e«pe±n Þ dikai»tera lgoui tän politän: to
be obsequious and sensible he must address the compliment to the foreigners
(III.3n.), and to them alone. In spite of the agreement of P (t[. . ][. . . . ]u
Dorandi-Stein) with AB (below, p. 231), we need either <pr¼> toÆ xnou
(Casaubon) or to± xnoi (Schwartz before Coray) or pr¼ (for toÆ) xnou.
To say (to unspecified persons, presumably citizens) that foreigners speak more
justly than citizens is not obsequious but foolish, since it is likely to alienate
the citizens. For lgein or e«pe±n with pr», I.5, XIII.11, XIV.13, XVII.2, 7,
XXV.2, 4, epil. XXVI, XXIX.5; with dative, I.6, II.2, 10, VII.2, VIII.7, XV.4,
5, 7, XVIII.9, XXVIII.5. For the word order kaª <pr¼> toÆ xnou d see
on I.5 (Þ oÉ pwle± ktl.). He courts foreigners because they increase the circle
of his friends. They are not pleading a case at law (Jebb). The article, which
designates ‘the foreigners’ as a class (cf. epil. XXVI), precludes this. Even with
pr¼ xnou (art. omitted, as XXIII.2), tän politän still suggests the whole
citizen body, not individuals.
5 Compare the behaviour of the K»lax (II.6). He too kisses the children and
addresses them in terms gratifying to their father. But he gains their favour by
buying them presents and makes sure that their father sees his generosity. The
*reko plays with the children and seems as eager to please them as their
father. Cf. Suet. Aug. 83 talis aut ocellatis nucibusque ludebat cum pueris minutis, quos
facie et garrulitate amabiles undique conquirebat, R. Kassel, Kleine Schriften (Berlin and
New York 1991) 30.
kaª e«i»nta j¦ai Åkou ¾moi»tera e²nai täi patr©: e«elq»nta (P) could
be right (I propose pelqÛn for piÛn V at XXI.11). But the present appropri-
ately suggests that he loses no time. Similar comparisons: Herod. 6.60–1 oÉd ì
n Ókon e«kai Åkwi | coi n oÌtw, PCG adesp. 128 Åkwi . . . Ókon oÉd
n | oÌtw Âmoion ggonen, Plu. 1077c e« mte jtta jtthi mte mel©tthi
mlitta mte puräi pur¼ £ Åkwi, t¼ toÓ l»gou, Ókon n pantª cr»nwi
ggonen parllakton, Eust. Od. 1964.1 ¾moi»tero Åkou· pª tän pnthi
pareoik»twn kat ì Àyin, Diogenian. vii.37 (CPG 1.293), Apostol. xii.73 (CPG
2.560) ¾moi»tero Åkou· toÓto parapa©zei di tn mjreian tän Åkwn,
Shakespeare, Henry VIII V.i.170–1 ‘Tis as like you / As cherry is to cherry’.
We might expect £ Ókon Åkwi (Gale) or Åkou <Åkwi> (Navarre 1920);
but ¾moi»tero Åkou in Eust. and the paroemiographers suggests that the
brachylogy is acceptable (for related types of brachylogy, KG 2.310 (3), 566 (i)).
228
Resemblance to the father, besides being (if the children are good-looking) a
tribute to his looks, is an indication of legitimacy (Gow on Theoc. 17.44, West
on Hes. Op. 235).
kaª proagag»meno jil¦ai: ‘draws to himself and kisses’ (LSJ progw
b.i.2). The aorist part. (P, ce, Cobet 1874) should be preferred to the present
(AB) in the light of X. Cyr. 8.4.26 Cruntan . . . j©lhe proagag»meno,
Plu. 160d toÓ Perindrou proagagomnou kaª jilanto, as it should at
Chariton 2.7.7 proag<ag>»meno (Cobet) aÉtn katej©lhen. Cf. also Ar.
Au. 141 oÉk kua, oÉ proe±pa, oÉ prohggou.
kaª par ì aËt¼n kaq©aqai: kaqi|a]qai P (coni. Cobet 1874),35 not
kaqi|ta]qai (Bassi, Kondo, Dorandi-Stein), contrary to the principle of
syllable-division observed in this papyrus: apall[atte|]qai, a[po]keira|qai,
c[rh]|ta, kth]a|[q]ai (KB 1.350.3, E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the
Ancient World (2 1987 = BICS Suppl. 46) 17, R. Janko, Philodemus, On Poems, Book 1
(Oxford 2000) 76 n. 3). kaq©taqai (AB), supposedly ‘place’, would give infe-
rior sense, even if this sense could be established by adequate parallels, which
it cannot (see Stein 87), and aorist infin. is desirable, like the preceding jil¦ai
(see on §6 pleitki . . . poke©raqai). In the transitive use active kaq©ai
(d) is more regular, and a transitive middle kaq©zeqai is attested only in the
senses ‘settle (colonists)’, A.R. 2.947, 4.278, and ‘set up (temple, altar, statue)’,
Call. Dian. 233, A.R. 4.1219, [Anacreon] AP 6.143.3 (Page, Further Greek Epi-
grams 520); cf. E. Hi. 31.36 But adequate support is provided by compounds:
D. 28.15 umparakaqimeno Dmwna, 33.14 (cited on §3 ¯na koin» ktl.),
Lycurg. 141 pa±da kaª guna±ka parakaqiamnou auto±, Luc. Pisc. 12
toÆ plouiwtrou . . . parakaqiamnh plh©on.
kaª to± mn umpa©zein aÉt¼ lgwn “ ìA k», pleku”: so AB, and
probably P (only the final | ku now visible; k[ai . . . . ]pu[ . . . ] . a[| au[to
c. xv ] | du N). Presumably k» and pleku are words called out by
the man as he plays with the children. But we do not know what he means
by using these words. The game (if game it is) is as unfathomable as that
played by the ìOyimaq in XXVII.12. There is a further uncertainty: whether
aÉt» belongs with umpa©zein (aÉt» stands after the infin. at IV.9, XVIII.3,
XX.5, XXX.11) or with lgwn. Stein argues that, since to± mn umpa©zein is
contrasted with t d . . . n kaqeÅdein, then umpa©zein aÉt» will create an
expectation that something contrasted with aÉt» is to follow. This is perhaps
too strict. Possibly aÉt» merely emphasises that he participates personally in
35 Also reported from Par. supp. gr. 450 (46 Wilson) by Torraca (1974) 87, and from
Ambros. E 119 sup. (21 Wilson) by Stefanis (1994b) 130. aËt»n is reported (whether
rightly I do not know) from Rehdig. 22 (71 Wilson) by Diels 1883; Stefanis tells me
that it is in Vind. supp. gr. 32 (68 Wilson) and its descendant Laur. Conv. Soppr. 110
(12 Wilson).
36 In E. Hel. 1534 read kaq©<t>ato; in Th. 4.130.7 pikaq©tanto for pekaq©anto.
229
COMMENTARY
the game, or that he ‘übernimmt das Amt der Kinderwärterin’ (Bechert); cf.
IV.9, IX.3, XXIV.9, XXX.11. If aÉt» is taken with lgwn, then ‘he himself
says’ appears to imply that what he says is also being said by the children or
would as naturally or more naturally be said by them. This would make sense
if the words were recognisable as baby-talk or play-talk. At all events, aÉtän
(Fraenkel and Groeneboom) is otiose.
There are many unconvincing explanations of why he uses the words k»
and pleku: he is referring to toys or amulets (Casaubon; cf. A. B. Cook,
Zeus 2 (Cambridge 1925) 698–9), giving a spelling lesson ( ìA-ko k», Pe-
le-ku pleku Fraenkel and Groeneboom; cf. Edmonds and Austen), telling
a story (‘uerba initialia alicuius fabellae’ Pauw) or riddle (P. Graindor, RIB
48 (1905) 167–8, adducing Ath. 456b-e, followed by Stefanis 1994b; on riddle-
games see S. Mendner, RLAC 10 (1978) 857, Arnott on Alex. 242, Konstantakos
153–4, 162–3), lifting up and lowering the children, whom he designates by
terms representing lightness and heaviness (S. Koujeas, Hermes 41 (1906) 478–
80, id. 1915; Edmonds 1929),37 using baby-talk, with ko (so accented) for
rt©ko and pleku for plux (J. D. Meerwaldt, Mnemosyne 53 (1925) 340,
55 (1927) 44–53). Or he is playing a game, such as modern children play, with
a clenched fist and extended fingers, which are termed k» and pleku. So
(with variations) Jebb, Zingerle 1893, W. E. J. Kuiper, Mnemosyne 53 (1925) 350,
U. Rüdiger, MDAI(R) 73–4 (1966–7) 248–50. The game described by Rüdiger
is known in England as ‘Paper, Scissors, Stone’ (I. and P. Opie, Children’s Games
in Street and Playground (Oxford 1969) 26–7). I reject this not so much because (as
Stein asserts) it calls for gestures rather than spoken words (the Opies show that
words may be used) but because the identifications are fanciful and arbitrary.
A suggestion by G. C. Papacharalampous, Laograj©a 17 (1957–8) 405–8, that
k» stands for empty hand, pleku for a coin concealed in the other hand,
is vulnerable to the same criticism.
For pleku Lycius proposed qÅlako, a conjecture of unrecognised merit.
I shall make the best case I can for it, before concluding that it cannot safely be
accepted. k» and qÅlako (XVI.6n.) are natural partners (X. An. 6.4.23
ko± kaª qulkoi), and the personal application of their partnership is
described as ‘proverbial’ by Alex. 88.3–5 kat te tn paroim©an | e© pot ì eÔ
mn k», eÔ d qÅlako | nqrwp» tin; cf. Theophylact.Sim. Ep. 79 ti t¼n
qÅlakon cei dermtinon . . . t© d¦ta t¼ ken¼n toÓto kaª koÓjon doxrion
pª tooÓton t¼n plinon k¼n diejÅhe;, Eust. Il. 1303.38 (4.739.21 –2 van
der Valk) kaq qÅlako t¼ nqrÛpinon äma oÌtw kat toÆ palaioÆ kaª
k». The word k» is applied to the physical body by Epich. 166 aÌta
jÅi nqrÛpwn, koª pejuhmnoi, Timo Phlias. SH 785 nqrwpoi kene¦
37 Cf. A. Thumb, CQ 8 (1914) 191, H. G. Viljoen, CQ 31 (1937) 53, whose conjecture

k»n te kaª plekun in Hermipp. 24.3 is an irresponsible shot in the dark.
230
o«io mpleoi ko© (cf. Petr. 42.4 utres inflati ambulamus, Sen. Ep. 77.16 saccus
es; E. Norden, Kleine Schriften (Berlin 1966) 23). It may connote simply belly
(Archil. 119 West, E. Med. 679, oracle ap. Plu. Thes. 3.5) or more specifically a
drinker’s pot-belly and a pot-bellied drinker: Ar. Ach. 1002 k¼n Kthijänto
‘a skinful of Ctesiphon’ (Þ pacÆ kaª progtwr ¾ Kthijän kÛptetai
Sr ), Antiph. 20 toÓton oÔn | di ì o«nojlug©an kaª pco toÓ Ûmato | k¼n
kaloÓi. The word molg» (Tarentine for k») was also applied personally
(Ar. fr. 308). Falstaff is ‘a tun [wine-barrel] of man’ (Shakespeare, I Henry IV,
II.iv.499). See also O. Crusius, Philologus 46 (1888) 619. The word qÅlako is
applied to the physical body by Anaxarch. 72 A 1 (ii.235.18 DK), A 13 (ii.239.2)
pt©e t¼n ìAnaxrcou qÅlakon, and figuratively to a person by Pl. Tht. 161 a
l»gwn tin . . . qÅlakon. The two are combined in the word koqÅlako
(Ar. fr. 180, Archipp. 4, Diocl.Com. 3). So, engaging in verbal banter with the
children, he calls out two words which are proverbially applied to men with fat
paunches, ‘wineskin’ and ‘sack’. This paves the way for what follows: he lets
some of the children use his paunch as a couch to sleep on, even though they
weigh heavily on him. Self-depreciation is followed by self-imposed discomfort.
And the unflattering terms which he applies to himself contrast well with the
flattering terms in which he has described the children and, by implication,
their father.
I should like to believe this. But two doubts stand in the way. First, qÅlako
was not in P. This is not, in itself, decisive. The text suffered loss or dislocation
before the time of Philodemus (Introduction, pp. 37–8). AB share that loss or
dislocation with P (Philodemus). Therefore AB and P are derived from the
same faulty ancestor. That ancestor may well have been further corrupted; if
so, its corruptions will be common to P and AB. There are (I believe) such
common corruptions in §4 (omission of pr») and §9 (nujamnou and k»nin).
The second doubt weighs more heavily: ‘saying “Wineskin” and “Sack”’ is not
a very natural way to describe how he plays with the children and draws
attention to his paunch.
Casaubon (unaware of Lycius) suggested that k» and pleku are terms
by which he designates not himself but the children. But ‘Wineskin’ and
‘Sack’ suit a child less well than a man. And ‘Axe’, in allusion to a child,
remains unexplained. Casaubon toyed with three possible explanations: (i)
‘oxycephalic’ (jox»), (ii) ‘sharp-witted’ (Luc. Smp. 6 t¼n twmÅlon, t¼n
legktik»n· X©jo aÉt¼n o¬ maqhtaª kaª Kop©da kaloÓin), (iii) like p»qwn
and qwn, hypocoristic for ‘boy’.
Casaubon suggested yet another approach: kk» for k», on the strength
of Hsch. A 2435 kk» (‘quanquam ibi fortasse kkÛ legendum’)· parmwro.
lgetai d paid©oi, Þ mwro± (‘. . .“silly”, spoken to children because they
are being silly’). Why the word kk» or kkÛ (or ìAkkÛ) was spoken is clarified
by Plu. 1040b (Chrysipp. SVF 3 fr. 313) t¦ ìAkkoÓ kaª t¦ ìAljitoÓ, di ì æn
231
COMMENTARY
t paidria toÓ kakocole±n a¬ guna±ke ne©rgouin (‘the names Akko and

Alphito, by which women rouse children from laziness’). Akko was a foolish
and lazy woman of folk-tale and comedy, cited by nurses as a warning to idle
infants (J. J. Winkler, ‘Akko’, CPh 77 (1982) 137–8, refuting the suggestions (i)
that she was a bogey-woman like Mormo, (ii) that she has some connection
with the proverb mentioned below). This does not appear to suit the situation,
and it throws no light on pleku.
A possible link between k» and a children’s game is suggested by the
proverbial expression käi (or k©wi) mormolÅtteqai ‘play bogey with a
wineskin’: Hsch. O 1658 “oÉk k©wi mentr ì mormolÅtteto | aÉtoÅ, peª
td ì t ì lhq¦” (Crates Com. 10)· paroim©a pª tän kaª t ken dedoik»twn·
peª ken¼ ¾ k». The proverb is quoted by Suda A 4177, M 1251, Diogenian.
ii.65, Macar. ii.52, Apostol. iv.10 (CPG 1.206, 2.148, 311); cf. Phot. A 2975,
Hsch. A 7725, Eust. Od. 1552.25, Diogenian. ii.100. The k» cannot be a
bag into which a bogey-woman threatens to put children (as suggested by
Roscher, Lex.Myth. 1 (1884–90) 210–11, s.u. ‘Akko’; cf. Crusius, ‘Akko’, RE i.1
(1893) 1171 –3). This does not square with the ancient explanations of the
proverb, in which k» stands for a threat which is empty or unreal. More
likely, the threat is that something will be let out of the wineskin, which is empty,
or is the wineskin itself, inflated to look like the bogey’s head. But if the man
is pretending that a wineskin is a bogey-woman, what is the role of the axe?
I conclude that the passage is inexplicable, possibly corrupt. Other (hopeless)
conjectures: Kal», GlukÅ Darvaris, Kak» (‘Little finger’) M. Schmidt.
t d pª t¦ gatr¼ n kaqeÅdein ma qlib»meno: kaqeu[ P, but
kaqeudeihql[. . . . ]m[. ]l[. ] | N. Apparently P omitted ma. That it stood after
qlib»meno cannot be excluded, in spite of N. But then the line would be longer
than normal (24 letters against a norm of 19–21). And this word order would
not be acceptable. For the order infinitive + ma + participle at end of sentence,
XI.4; for alternative orders, II.3n. Emendation is ineffectual: katabluz»meno
Naber, kataqlib»meno Fraenkel and Groeneboom, naql- Edmonds 1929.
6 kaª pleitki d poke©raqai: P (according to N) had pleitou; but the

notion that he had ‘very expensive’ haircuts is not to be entertained. ple±ta
(Navarre 1920) has no appeal. And present infin. poke©reqai (Koujeas) is
not needed. The aorist is appropriate, because having a haircut is viewed as a
completed act, as IV.13 boÅletai . . . poke©raqai, XXI.3 t¼n u¬¼n poke±rai
gagÜn e« DeljoÅ. The aorist is used even when an act, complete on its
own, is repeated: HP 6.7.2 xhrnai pollki kaª potr±yai kaª pe±rai,
[X.] Ath. 1.19 ngkh gr nqrwpon pollki plonta kÛphn labe±n. The
present infin. is used when an act is viewed from an aspect other than its
completeness, such as its inception, development, or continuance. Here cein
(because he continues to have) and le©jeqai (because he continues to be
232
oiled). But perhaps metablleqai should be metabalqai, since a change of

clothes is most naturally viewed as a completed act. See KG 1.192–3, Schwyzer
2.257–8, Goodwin §§96–101, Moorhouse, Syntax of Sophocles 181 –2, 207–9.
Constant haircuts ensure that his hair is never too short or too long. Long
hair, while it might suggest parsimony or indifference to personal appear-
ance (Ar. Nu. 835–6 æn Ëp¼ t¦ jeidwl©a | peke©rat ì oÉdeª pÛpot ì
oÉd ì le©yato), was also characteristic of rich young dandies, cavalrymen,
and Spartan-sympathisers (Bremer, ‘Haartracht und Haarschmuck’, RE vii.2
(1912) 2118–19, Neil on Ar. Eq. 580, Dover on Ar. Nu. 14, MacDowell on Ar.
V. 466, Geddes 309). For types of haircut, K. F. Hermann and H. Blümner,
Lehrbuch der griechischen Privatalterthümer (Freiburg and Tübingen 1882) 204–7,
Daremberg-Saglio i (1887) 1360, F. W. Nicolson, ‘Greek and Roman barbers’,
HSCPh 2 (1891) 41 –56; cf. epil. X n., XXVI.4n.
kaª toÆ ½d»nta leukoÆ cein: cf. Ar. Pax 1309–10 oÉdn gr, å p»nhroi,
| leukän ½d»ntwn rgon t ì , £n m ti kaª maäntai, Cat. 39.1 –2 Egnatius,
quod candidos habet dentes, | renidet usque quaque. By contrast, the Ducer has
toÆ ½d»nta mlana (XIX.4). The Greeks whitened their teeth by chewing
a gum obtained from the stem of the mastic shrub, pistacia lentiscus: HP 9.1.2,
Steier, ‘Mastix’, RE xiv.2 (1930) 2168–75, M. Grieve (ed. C. F. Leyel), A Modern
Herbal (London 1931) 522 (for ‘Scio’ read ‘Chios’), O. Polunin and A. Huxley,
Flowers of the Mediterranean (London 1965) 119, K. Lembach, Die Pflanzen bei
Theokrit (Heidelberg 1970) 38–41, A. Huxley and W. Taylor, Flowers of Greece and
the Aegean (London 1977) 100–1, H. Baumann, Greek Wild Flowers and Plant Lore
in Ancient Greece (transl. W. T. and E. R. Stearn, London 1993) 159 and (the gum)
Pl. 335. Thus Hsch. 3025 (PCG adesp. 429) c±non diatrÛgwn· e«Ûqai tn
c±non trÛgein o¬ kallwpiz»menoi neka toÓ leukoÓn toÆ ½d»nta, Luc.
Lex. 12 cinotrÛktan nean©kon, Iamb. VP 28.154 cin©zein toÆ ½d»nta.
The Romans had numerous recipes for toothpowders: Daremberg-Saglio ii.1
(1892) 102, Mau, ‘Dentifricium’, RE v.I (1903) 221 .
kaª t ¬mtia d crht metablleqai: the ìAneleÅqero and the
A«crokerd have only one cloak, for, when it is at the laundry, the for-
mer stays at home, the latter borrows a replacement (XXII.8, XXX.10). The
husband in Ar. Ec. 314–19 has only one. But we may assume that they have
one for summer and another for winter. This is what distinguishes the Athe-
nians from the Spartans, and Socrates from the Athenians: the Athenians
change their cloaks according to the season, Socrates and the Spartans wear
the same cloak in summer and winter alike (X. Mem. 1.6.2–6, Lac. 2.1 –4).
When a k»lax boasts of two smart cloaks in Eup. 172.5–7 ¬mat©w d moi dÅ ì
t¼n car©ente toÅtw, | o³n (Porson: toÅtoin | codd.) metalambnwn eª
qteron xelaÅnw | e« gorn, he may be making one do double duty by
turning it inside out (Kassel and Austin ad loc.). The luxurious Phaeacians have
e¯mata . . . xhmoib (H. Od. 8.249); but not Eumaeus (14.513–14 oÉ gr
233
COMMENTARY
pollaª cla±nai phmoibo© te citäne | nqde nnuqai, m©a d ì oh jwtª

ktwi). While the Ducer is faulted for wearing a dirty cloak (XIX.6), a
man who changes a cloak which is still fit for wear is extravagant or affected,
an Athenian Lord Goring, who ‘changes his clothes at least five times a day’
(Oscar Wilde, An Ideal Husband, Act I). For the verb, X. Mem. 1.6.6 t ge mn
¬mtia o²q ì Âti o¬ metaball»menoi yÅcou kaª qlpou neka metabllon-
tai (Lac. 2.1 ¬mat©wn metabola±). For crht ‘serviceable’, Hdt. 1.94.6 Âa
ji §n crht p©ploa, LSJ i.1. <ti> crht (Schneider before Fraenkel
and Groeneboom), though clearer, is unnecessary. See also Geddes 314.
kaª cr©mati le©jeqai: cr±ma is a general word for unguent (whether olive
oil or oil from another fruit), and should not be translated (as it often is)
‘perfumed oil’, which is normally expressed by mÅron (IV.2n.). The two words
are sometimes explicitly distinguished: Od. 8 pant¼ . . . mÅrou kaª cr©mato,
15–16 poll d (sc. mÅgdala pikr) g©netai perª Kilik©an kaª poioÓin x
aÉtän cr±ma. jaª d kaª e« t pouda±a tän mÅrwn rm»ttein ãper kaª
t¼ k t¦ balnou (sc. laion) kaª toÓto (aÉt» Schneider), X. An. 4.4.13 polÆ
gr ntaÓqa hËr©keto cr±ma, æi cränto nt ì la©ou, Åeion kaª hminon
kaª mugdlinon k tän pikrän kaª term©nqinon· k d tän aÉtän toÅtwn
kaª mÅron hËr©keto. In X. Smp. 2.4 Socrates says that grown men should
not smell of mÅron but of kalokagaq©a, which is a cr±ma not obtainable
from the muropälai: the more general cr±ma embraces the more specific
mÅron. Sometimes cr±ma is used in place of mÅron, when the context makes
the equation clear: either the cr±ma is described as an artificially scented or
compound product (Xenoph. 3.6 West khto± ½dmn cr©mai deu»menoi,
Call. Lau.Pall. 15–17 m mÅra . . . (oÉ gr ìAqana©a cr©mata meikt jile±)
| oete) or an epithet hints at or specifies its scent (TrGF 20 Achaeus 5.2
crimtwn . . . A«gupt©wn (glossed as A«gupt©ou mÅrou by Ath. 689b; Gow
on Theoc. 15.114), Philox. PMG 836(b).43 cr©mata . . . mbro©odma). See
further Bulloch on Call. Lau.Pall. 16, S. Lilja, The Treatment of Odours in the
Poetry of Antiquity (Helsinki 1972) 73–4. Where, as here, the bare cr±ma is used,
there is no cause to equate it with mÅron. We may imagine an unguent more
exotic than the plain olive oil which was used in the baths and gymnasia.
But (contrary to Stein) what is at issue here is not the man’s extravagance.
Frequent haircuts, white teeth, and clean clothes are a sign not of extravagance
but of obsessive preoccupation with personal appearance. And the expression
cr©mati le©jeqai puts the emphasis on appearance, not on smell. We are to
picture the man as sleekly oiled rather than fragrantly scented. For the reverse
picture, XXVI.4n. (aÉcmän) and Ar. Nu. 835–6 (above on kaª pleitki ktl.).
The original spelling is cr±ma, and there is no good evidence that cr±ma
had yet supplanted it. cr±ma is preserved by the papyrus at Call. fr. 194.45,
76, by the mss. at Call. Lau.Pall. 16, 26, by M at A. Ag. 94 (crm- V,
cr©m- FTr), by A at Ath. 409e (Philox. loc. cit.), and is indicated by the mss.
234
at Xenoph. 3.6 (crm- Ath. A), Achaeus 5.2 (cr©mm- Ath. A). The mss. offer
cr±ma (cr©ma) at Od. 8, 15 bis, 28 and (the only other occurrences before
Theophrastus, if we ignore the Hippocratic corpus) Achaeus 19.2 (crm- Ath.
A, cr©m- E), X. Smp. 2.4, An. 4.4.13. P (now ] | mati, but c]ri[|] mati N) will
have had c]ri|mati not cri[]|mati (Bassi, Kondo, Dorandi-Stein), which is
counter to the normal principles of syllable-division (see on §5 kaª par ì aËt¼n
kaq©aqai).
7 kaª t¦ mn gor pr¼ t trapza projoitn: the bankers’ tables,
located in the Agora (Wycherley, ‘Market of Athens’ 16 = Stones of Athens 99,
id. Agora iii 192–3, 206, Bogaert, Banques et banquiers 37–9, 62, 375–6, R. S.
Stroud, Hesperia 43 (1974) 167, Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 190 n. 50,
id. Lending and Borrowing 211), are a place to meet and talk (Pl. Ap. 17c, Hp.Mi.
368b, Lys. 9.5, Plu. 70e, 513a). t¦ gor is partitive gen., comparable to that
which is used with place-names, e.g. Hdt. 3.136.1 t¦ ì Ital©h Tranta,
X. HG 1.2.14 toÓ Peiraiä n liqotom©ai, Men. Dysc. 1 –2, Sic. 6; KG 1.338,
Schwyzer 2.113–14. projoitn is ‘visit frequently’; prorceqai (P) ‘visit’ is
a trivialisation.
tän d gumna©wn n toÅtoi diatr©bein oÕ n o¬ jhboi gumnzwntai:
tän gumna©wn is another partitive gen. (KG 1.338–9, Schwyzer 2.115–16;
cf. III epil. toÆ toioÅtou tän nqrÛpwn, VI.4, XXIII.5), chosen to balance
the preceding phrase. The meaning is not ‘in the gymnasia he will haunt
those places where . . .’ (Jebb). That would be tän . . . gumna©wn (without n
toÅtoi) diatr©bein oÕ n ktl. (KG 1.340–1, Schwyzer 2.114). The reference is
to specific gymnasia. During the first of their two years of service the ephebes
underwent gymnastic training, supervised by official paidotr©bai, and did
garrison duty at the Piraeus ([Arist.] Ath. 42.3), where, if an inscription is
rightly supplemented, they had their own gymnasium (IG ii2 478.30, 305/4 bc
(= O. W. Reinmuth, The Ephebic Inscriptions of the Fourth Century BC (Leiden 1971)
no. 17) n täi gumna©]w. i tän jbwn). But they may have exercised in the
official gymnasia in the city too. Three such gymnasia are known at this period,
Akademeia, Lykeion, Kynosarges: K. Schneider, Die griechischen Gymnasien und
Palästren (diss. Freiburg 1908) 50–1, J. Oehler, ‘Gymnasium’, RE vii.2 (1912)
2011, J. Delorme, Gymnasion, Étude sur les monuments consacrés à l’éducation en Grèce
(Paris 1960) 51 –9, Wycherley, Stones of Athens ch. ix, D. G. Kyle, Athletics in Ancient
Greece (Leiden 1987) 71 –92. [X.] Ath. 2.10 mentions private gumnia owned by
the rich (Schneider 31 –2, Delorme 258, S. L. Glass in W. J. Raschke (ed.), The
Archaeology of the Olympics (Madison 1988) 162). The article with jhboi (only
in P) specifies the ephebes as a class; cf. D. 19.303, [Arist.] Ath. 42.2, 3, 43.1,
53.4, Din. 3.15, [Pl.] Ax. 366e. For detailed discussion of the evidence for the
ephebate, C. Pélékidis, Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ
(Paris 1962), Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 42; for a summary of current knowledge
235
COMMENTARY
and speculation, Parker, Athenian Religion 253–5, H.-J. Gehrke, ‘Ephebeia’, DNP
3 (1997) 1071 –5, J. Dillery, CQ 52 (2002) 462–70.
Loiterers in gymnasia are usually suspected of looking for boys to pick
up: Ar. V. 1023–5, Pax 762–3, Au. 139–42, Aeschin. 1.135; K. J. Dover, Greek
Homosexuality (London 1978) 54–5, N. Fisher in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, S. von
Reden (edd.), Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens
(Cambridge 1998) 94–104, T. E. Scanlon, Eros and Greek Athletics (Oxford 2002)
218–19.
toÓ d qetrou kaq¦qai, Âtan §i qa, plh©on tän trathgän: toÓ
qetrou is a loose partitive gen., by analogy with t¦ gor and tän
gumna©wn, rather than gen. of place, which is poetic (KG 1.384–5, Schwyzer
2.112). qa ‘spectacle, performance’ (LSJ ii.2) is a sense first attested here and
XXX.6, 14. We do not want (nor has P room for) §i <¡> qa (Ast before
Immisch, but with oÕ n for Âtan). Cf. VI.7 (spurious) Âtan §i panguri,
XXII.6 Âtan §i Moue±a. In the time of Theophrastus the generals appear to
have been allotted front seats ex officio (IG ii2 500.35–6 = SIG3 345, 302/1 bc);
contrast Ar. Eq. 573–6 (if they are not allotted front seats they will go on strike).
See Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 268, Csapo and Slater 299, M. Maass, Die Pro-
hedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (Munich 1972) 87, 90–1, A. S. Henry, Honours
and Privileges in Athenian Decrees (Hildesheim etc. 1983) 291 –4. The behaviour
reported here chimes in with Ath. 354d-e Qe»jrato d ì n täi Perª kolake©a
(fr. 83 Wimmer, 547 Fortenbaugh; cf. Fortenbaugh, Quellen 303–4) jhªn Þ
MÅrti ¾ ìArge±o KleÛnumon t¼n coreutn ma kaª k»laka prokaq©zonta
pollki aÉtäi kaª to± undikzoui, boul»menon d kaª met tän kat tn
p»lin nd»xwn ¾rqai ktl.
8 kaª gorzein aËtäi mn mhdn, xnoi d e« Buzntion † pitlmata†

ka©: ago]|r . [ c. xviii ]|xe . . [ (Dorandi-Stein, xen. [ Fish) c.xiii kai]| P,
ago | ate[ c. vii ]o[. ]en[. ]hen | xe[. . (. )]h[ c. xii kai]| N, i.e. probably ago|
raze[in aut]w[i m]en [mh]den (as AB) | xenoi [ c.xi kai].
The placing of gorzein before aËtäi mn mhdn might suggest that this
infin. belongs equally to the second part of the sentence, and that only an
accusative noun is needed in place of pitlmata. But the word order,
though it suggests that, does not require it (def. III n., Denniston 371 –2).
And the prepositional phrases (e« Buzntion etc.) preclude it, unless we are
prepared to take gorzein . . . e« Buzntion as a ‘pregnant’ construction
(Stein compares X.2, which I regard as corrupt). So in the second clause we
probably need a verb of motion (pmpein is added after KÅzikon by c, before
e« K- by M). For gorzein see Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca 35–9. For dat.
aËtäi (Sylburg, imputing it, as does everyone else, to Stephanus, who wrote
aÉtäi) and corruption to acc., XI.8 ½ywne±n autäi (Casaubon: -t»n AB).
236
The noun p©talma is not attested before the second century ad, is con-
fined to non-literary texts, and has no meaning that would be appropri-
ate here. See LSJ (which, like Jebb, proposes the unwarranted sense ‘com-
mission’) and the Revised Supplement. Add Hsch. E 5250 and numerous
attestations in papyri (F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden 1
(Berlin 1925) 572–3). The following nouns (some, marked by asterisk, unat-
tested) have been proposed : potlmata Casaubon (only EM 176.4 in the
sense jema; Casaubon assumes for it one of the senses of potol, ‘part-
ing gift’, LSJ 1), pigmata Furlanus before Schwartz, ∗ pitmmata Pauw,
∗
piklmia Reiske 1749 (in a letter of Bernhard ap. Reiske, Lebensbeschreibung
362; cf. Briefe 360), ∗ pitmata Reiske 1757, p©tata Bernhard 1748 (ap.
Reiske, Lebensbeschreibung 297–8; cf. Briefe 263, 294), glmata Darvaris before
Meineke, pmmata Ast, lmda Foss 1858, ¬mtia Petersen, ∗ piklmata
Ussing, o²non Naber,38 pitmata Bersanetti, la or la Edmonds 1910,
∗
pitrÛmata W. E. J. Kuiper (according to a review in Museum 45 (1938)
142), le©mmata Perrotta, la Stark, mÅra Dorandi-Stein. For the infini-
tive, pot<llein> (Foss 1858) would serve (cf. XVII.2, Alex. 278.3–4 e«
tran . . . potllwn p»lin | . . . kÅaqon); but not pit<llein> (Darvaris
before Meiser and Perrotta; pite±lai Petersen), suited only to messages. But
none of these suggestions satisfies. ‘Hymettian honey’ and ‘Laconian dogs’
are luxury items, whose excellence is associated with their place of origin. A
third noun coupled with these must have a similar geographical epithet or
must be an item of such excellence in its own right that it does not need one.
Neither Óka ìAttik (Herwerden) nor ìAttik daidlmata (Meiser) appeals;
and ‘Attic’ gives insufficient variety, since ‘Hymettian’ honey (see ad loc.) was
often called ‘Attic’. In P xenoi [ c. xi kai | l]akw[ leaves insufficient space for
d() e« Buzntion pitlmata, let alone for an additional infinitive. Possibly
a line has been omitted, which would have accommodated a noun (perhaps
with epithet) and infin.: i.e. xnoi [d ì e« Buzntion † pi | tlmata† c. ix
ka©] or xnoi [d ì e« Buzntion c. ii | c. vi † pitlmata† ka©].
Byzantium, founded in the first half of the seventh century, occupied a
strategic position at the mouth of the Black Sea. Allied after the Persian wars
for the most part to Athens, it had recently sustained a long siege by Philip II
of Macedon (340–339). See Kubitschek, ‘Byzantion’, RE iii.1 (1897) 1115–58,
W. L. MacDonald in R. Stillwell (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites
(Princeton 1976) 177–9, B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian
Conquest (Leiden 1986) 215–37, J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (London 4 1999)
241 –2, 246.
38 Wine would do nicely, since Byzantines were notorious drinkers (Kassel and Austin
on Men. fr. 66).
237
COMMENTARY
Lakwnik kÅna e« KÅzikon: Laconian dogs are hunting dogs, proverbial
for speed and keenness of scent (Pi. fr. 106, 107a Snell, S. Ai. 8, Pl. Prm. 128c, X.
Cyn. 10.1, 4, Call. Dian. 93–7, Var. R. 2.9.5, Hor. Epod. 6.5, Verg. G. 3.405, Ov.
Met. 3.208, 223, Gratt. 212, Plin. Nat. 10.177–8, Luc. 4.441, Sen. Phaed. 35–6,
Arr. Cyn. 3.6, Opp. Cyn. 1.372, Nemes. Cyn. 107, Shakespeare, A Midsummer
Night’s Dream IV.i.111 –33). See O. Keller, JÖAI 8 (1905) 251 –8, id. Die antike
Tierwelt 1 (Leipzig 1909) 118–23, Orth, ‘Hund’, RE viii.2 (1913) 2550–1, J.
Aymard, Essai sur les chasses romaines (Paris 1951) 254–7, D. B. Hull, Hounds
and Hunting in Ancient Greece (Chicago 1964) 31 –3, S. Lilja, Dogs in Ancient Greek
Poetry (Helsinki 1976) 49–51, 61, 96, A. Sakellariou, ‘O¬ Lkwnev kÅnev stn
rca©a Grammate©a’, Lakwnikaª Spouda© 13 (1996) 357–72, 14 (1998) 71 –6.
On the gender of kÅwn, the conventional doctrine, ‘when of hounds, mostly in
fem.’ (LSJ kÅwn i), is called into question by F. Williams, Eikasmos 10 (1999)
137–42. ‘Laconian hounds’, at all events, are fem. in classical Greek (Pi., S.,
Pl., X., Call., cited above), presumably because a¬ Lkainai kÅne a¬ qleiai
eÉjuterai tän rrnwn (Arist. HA 608a 27–8). Elsewhere, dog (not hound)
masc. IV.9, fem. XIV.5.
Cyzicus, founded, perhaps as early as the eighth century, on an island, now
a peninsula, in the southern Propontis, commanded the trade route between
the Black Sea and the Aegean, and achieved a commercial importance which
rivalled Byzantium. See Str. 12.11, F. W. Hasluck, Cyzicus (Cambridge 1910),
Ruge, ‘Kyzikos’, RE xii.1 (1924) 228–33, E. Akurgal in The Princeton Encyclopedia
of Classical Sites 473–4, Isaac 198–9, Boardman 240–1, 245–6.
Observe the rasping alliteration Lakwnik kÅna e« KÅzikon, followed by
the mellifluous mli ë Umttion e« ë R»don. See on XVI.14 k©llhi £ kÅlaki.
kaª mli ë Umttion e« ë R»don: honey from Hymettus was proverbially excel-
lent (Macho 428, Nic. Alex. 446, Eryc. AP 7.36.4 (Gow-Page, Garland of Philip
2265), Cic. Fin. 2.112, Hor. Carm. 2.6.14–15, S. 2.2.15, Str. 9.1.23, Plin. Nat.
11.32, Val. Fl. 1.397, Mart. 7.88.8, 11.42.3, 13.104, Luc. Merc.Cond. 35). Sim-
ilarly ‘Attic’ honey: Ar. Pax 252, Th. 1192, Archestr. fr. 60.17–18 Olson and
Sens (Lloyd-Jones and Parsons, SH 192), Antiph. 177.3, Phoenicid. 2.1, [Men.]
Comp. i.227–8 Jäkel, Ov. Tr. 1.4.29–30, Dsc. 2.82, Petr. 38.3, Plin. Nat. 21.57,
Mart. 5.37.10, Plu. Dio 58.2; Otto, Sprichwörter 169, Nachträge zu A. Otto . . . (ed.
R. Häussler, Darmstadt 1968) 106, 172, Frazer on Paus. 1.32.1, Keller, Tierwelt
2 (Leipzig 1913) 422, Schuster, ‘Mel’, RE xv.1 (1931) 367–8.
kaª taÓta poiän to± n t¦i p»lei dihge±qai: cf. VIII.10, XVII.9,
XXIII.2.
9 mlei d ka©: II.9n., VI.9n., XXVI.3n.

p©qhkon qryai dein»: p©qhko is ‘ape’ in general, or specifically the
Barbary ape (W. C. McDermott, The Ape in Antiquity (Baltimore 1938) 36,
238
104, al., T. Haltenorth and H. Diller, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Africa
including Madagascar (transl. R. W. Hayman, London 1980) 267–8 and Pl. 51).
The Barbary ape and the Ethiopian monkey (Cercopithecus Aethiops or Grivet:
Haltenorth and Diller 292–4 and Pl. 53) were commonly kept as pets: Din. fr.
vi.7 Conomis o¬ toÆ kall©a n to± okoi trjonte, toutti piqkou,
Eub. 114 trjein . . . p©qhkon, and e.g. Herod. 3.40–1, Plu. Per. 1.1, Cic.
Diu. 1.76, Mart. 7.87.4; McDermott 131 –40, J. C. M. Toynbee, Animals in
Roman Life and Art (London 1973) 55–60, S. Lilja, ‘The Ape in Ancient Com-
edy’, Arctos 14 (1980) 31 –8. For trjein ‘keep’ animals, XXI.6, LSJ a.ii.2 (add
Anaxandr. 29.1).
kaª t©turon ktaqai: B has the scholium Dwrie± t¼n turon. kaª ti d
¾ mikrn cwn oÉrn p©qhko. Tarant©noi d Àrni ti, £ ¾ klamo (Torraca
(1990) 31 –41 ; see the Introduction, p. 44), which I should emend to Tarant©noi
d ¾ klamo, £ Àrni ti, for conformity with Eust. Il. 1157.38–9 = Ath. 182d
(cited below). This derives, ultimately, from the scholia to Theocritus: S 3.2a
Wendel tin d jain Âti † ti eilhn», oÉ ikeliÛth † ·39 lloi d toÆ
trgou, teroi d toÆ atÅrou . . . tin d kaª klamon, 2c toÆ trgou
(Reinesius: rgoÆ codd.) titÅrou lgoui, 2d . . . o¬ d turon e²na© jain
(S rec. 3.2 Dübner, Ahrens, has in addition t©turo d ¾ p©qhko ¾ mikrn
cwn oÉrn . . . £ t©turo ¾ p©qhko, touttin ¾ trgo ¾ mikrn cwn
oÉrn), S 7.72c Wendel tin d par DwrieÓi toÆ atÅrou <oÌtw>
(add. Geel) podedÛkai lgeqai, 72d . . . £ ¾ turo. Echoes of this debate
are found elewhere: Hsch. T 996 t©turo · turo, klamo £ Àrni, Eust.
Il. 1157.38–9 (4.233.2–3 van der Valk) (klamo) kaloÅmeno titÅrino to±
n ì Ital©ai DwrieÓin (= Ath. 182d ¾ d kalmino aÉl¼ titÅrino kale±tai
par to± n ì Ital©ai DwrieÓin, Þ ìArtem©dwro . . . ¬tore± n bé perª
Dwr©do) et ì oÔn aturik». t©turoi gr Dwrikä o¬ turoi. See also
E. Wüst, ‘Tityroi’, RE vi.2a (1937) 1609–10.
LSJ reflects this variety and offers four meanings. (i) ‘short-tailed ape’ (LSJ
ii.1, the meaning it favours here), from Sb , S rec. Theoc. 3.2. This is connected
with the ‘Doric’ use of T©turo for turo (LSJ i.1, from Sb , S Theoc. 3.2,
7.72, Hsch., Eust.; cf. Str. 10.3.15, Ael. VH 3.40), and the further use of turo
for a tailed ape or ape-man (LSJ turo i.3, OLD ‘satyrus’ 2).40 (ii) ‘goat’ (LSJ
ii.2), from S Theoc. 3.2 (cf. the Virgilian scholia cited by Wendel ad loc.); also
39 Âti toÆ eilhnoÆ oÌ<tw> o¬ ikeliätai· lloi d Wendel (ed. 1914), Âti ti
eilhn» · o¬ ikeliätai [lloi] d Wendel, Überlieferung und Entstehung der Theokrit-
Scholien (Berlin 1920) 67. For further discussion see Wendel, De Nominibus Bucolicis
(Leipzig 1900) 20 n. 46, 22–3, Überlieferung 67–8, 152.
40 On satyr-apes and ape-men see McDermott 71 –2, 77–84, H. A. G. Brijder, ‘Apish
performances in the 6th cent. bc’, in J. Christiansen & T. Melander (edd.), Proceedings
of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery (Copenhagen 1988) 62–70.
239
COMMENTARY
Phot. 2.217 Naber titur©de kaª t©turoi· trgou e²do. (iii) ‘a kind of bird’
(LSJ ii.3), from Sb , Hsch. (iv) ‘reed or pipe’ (LSJ ii.4), from Sb , S Theoc. 3.2,
Hsch., more commonly called titÅrino aÉl» (Eust. = Ath., LSJ titÅrino,
M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford 1992) 92–3). We may rule out three of
these: an ape duplicates p©qhko, a goat does not make a fashionable pet, and
there is nothing showy about a reed pipe.
This leaves ‘a kind of bird’. And this bird will be the pheasant, jaian»,
Phasianus colchicus, named after its place of origin, the river Phasis in Colchis
(D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity (Oxford 1994) 57). Its native name appears in at
least two guises, not far removed from t©turo. (i) ttaro, explicitly identified
with jaian», imported from Media to Alexandria, where it was bred both
for show and as expensive fare for the table (Ptol. Euerg., FGrH 234 f 2a, b, ap.
Ath. 387e, 654c; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972) 1.515, 2.743
n. 181, E. E. Rice, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford 1983)
95). (ii) tatÅra, explicitly identified with jaian» (Artemidorus and Pam-
philus, on the authority of Epaenetus, ap. Ath. 387e; Hsch. T 242 tatÅra ·
¾ jaian¼ Àrni); cf. T 579 tetrgh· jagnwn edh (ttaroi· jaianän
e²do Schmidt), T 995 titÅra · Àrni poi¼ £ titurodé (titurÛdh Musurus,
t©turo Schmidt). For these names see Thompson, Glossary of Greek Birds 281 –
2. The pheasant had been introduced into Greece, and was bred in captivity,
by the end of the fifth century. This, and the value placed on it, is indicated by
Ar. Nu. 108–9 (‘I would not give up horses’) e« do©h g moi | toÆ jaianoÆ
oÍ trjei Lewg»ra. See Keller, Tierwelt 2.145–6, M. Wellmann, ‘Fasan’, RE
vi.2 (1909) 2001 –2, V. Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere (Berlin 8 1911) 367–9,
Thompson 298–300, C. W. Hünemörder, “Phasianus”: Studien zur Kulturgeschichte
des Fasans (Bonn 1970), Toynbee (above on p©qhkon) 254–5, J. Pollard, Birds in
Greek Life and Myth (London 1977) 93–4, S. Cramp et al. (edd.), Handbook of the
Birds of Europe and the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic
2 (Oxford 1980) 504–14, Hünemörder, ‘Fasan’, DNP 4 (1998) 433. Darvaris
proposed tatÅran here, Ribbeck 1870 both this and ttaron. Nothing of
this line (col. vii line 3) is now visible in P. Bassi claimed to read tit]u. [ron.
N has . . ][. . . ]put[. . . . . ]u[. . . . ]oa[, which Dorandi-Stein treat (very specula-
tively) as a misreading of ya]i [deino kai tit]u[ron kth]a[. However we
spell the name (for all we know, t©turo is an acceptable spelling), an oriental
pheasant fits the bill perfectly.
I am unmoved by Hünemörder (1970) 38–9, who claims that titÅra and
t©turo in Hsch. T 995, 996 (defined by non-specific Àrni) will be a different
bird from ttaro and tatÅra (specifically defined as jaian»), and that tit-
will be onomatopoeic, reflecting the cry of a bird such as the partridge (prdix),
whose cry Theophrastus described with the verb tittub©zein (fr. 181 Wimmer,
355b Fortenbaugh, on which see R. W. Sharples in W. W. Fortenbaugh
et al., Sources 5 (1995) 57–8). Hünemörder overlooks our passage. In this list
240
of exotic items there is no place for the familiar partridge, a native of Attica
(W. G. Arnott, CQ 27 (1977) 336–7, Dunbar on Ar. Au. 235–6). See also Stein
105.
To transpose ktaqai after dorkade©ou or traglou (Bloch) or
before dorkade©ou (Ast), so that the birds too might be constructed with
qryai, was a sensible idea, not supported by P.
kaª ikelik periter: the domestic pigeon or dove (Thompson 238–
47, Arnott on Alex. 217.1). The excellence of Sicilian pigeons is noted by Ath.
395b, who cites Alex. 58 periter | ndon trjw tän ikelikän toÅtwn
pnu | komy, and Nic. fr. 73; also by an interpolated gloss in Philem. 79
tur¼ ikelik¼ Âti krtito §n a¯ te periteraª ikelika©. For another pet
bird see XXI.6.
kaª dorkade©ou traglou: knucklebones of gazelle-horn, evidently a
luxury material, are mentioned in IG ii2 1533.23–4 (inventory of the temple
of Asclepius, 339/8 bc; S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, their
Dedications, and their Inventories (Amsterdam 1989) 154) trgaloi dorkdeoi
rgur©wi dedem(noi), Plb. 26.1.8 (presents given by Antiochus Epiphanes in
176 bc), Call. fr. 676 zork» toi, j©le koÓre, Libut©do aÉt©ka dÛw | pnte
neomktou tria, Herod. 3.19 a¬ dorkal±de (= 7 a¬ traglai), 63
t¦ii dorkin, [Luc.] Am. 16 tttara traglou Libuk¦ dork»; also
dorkdeoi alone (without trgaloi) P.Cair.Zen. 59009 b, 59019.2, 59069.7,
PSI 331.2, 7, 444.2 (all iii bc), perhaps Hsch. D 2246 dorcelo© (dorkdeoi
Latte)· trgaloi. They were normally made from the ankle-bone of calf,
sheep, or goat, but sometimes from other (including precious) materials: P.
Amandry, BCH Suppl. 9 (1984) 347–78, F. Poplin ibid. 381 –93, S. Laser, ‘Sport
und Spiel’, Archaeologia Homerica T (Göttingen 1987) 117, G. H. Gilmour, OJA
16 (1997) 167–75. On the game of knucklebones (mentioned as early as H.
Il. 23.88), Lamer, RE xiii.2 (1927) 1933–5, 2020–1, S. Mendner in T. Klauser
et al. (edd.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 10 (Stuttgart 1978) 849–50, Gow-
Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 2.60, Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Carm. 1.4.18, Laser 117–
22. trgaloi, unlike kÅboi (VI.5n.), are respectable (L. Kurke, Coins, Bodies,
Games, and Gold: the Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton 1999)
283–95).
kaª Qouriak tän troggÅlwn lhkÅqou: ‘spherical’ (as distinct from
cylindrical) suggests a vessel like the so-called ‘squat lekythos’ or the aryballos
(H. B. Walters, History of Ancient Pottery (London 1905) i.195–8, G. M. A. Richter
and M. J. Milne, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases (New York 1935) 14–16,
B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, The Athenian Agora, xii: Black and Plain Pottery
of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries BC (Princeton 1970) 153–4 with Pl. 38, R. M.
Cook, Greek Painted Pottery (London 3 1997) 221 –2). Examples of squat lekythoi
from the neighbourhood of Thurii may be seen in A. D. Trendall, The Red-
figured Vases of Lucania, Campania, and Sicily 2 (Oxford 1967), e.g. Plates 2.1,
241
COMMENTARY
65.5, 76.4–6, 77.4 and 7. What feature further distinguished the Thurian type
remains unknown. If (as suggested by Studniczka ap. Bechert)41 it was made
of precious metal (Timae. FGrH 566 f 26c ap. D.S. 13.82.8 mentions silver
lkuqoi at Acragas, Theoc. 18.45 a silver Àlpi, another word for oil flask),
I should have expected this to be stated explicitly. For geographical names
attached to vessels as indication of shape or type see Gow on Theoc. 2.156;
troggÅlo applied to a vessel, Men. fr. 229.1 (kdo), anon. AP 5.135.1 (Gow-
Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 3902) troggÅlh (sc. lguno). For the genitive (like
tän koliän below), X.8 la©an £ jo©nika tän camaª peptwk»twn, Ar. Pax
1154 murr©na . . . tän karp©mwn, Ec. 883 melÅdrion . . . ti tän ì Iwnikän, fr.
18.2 prokejlaion tän linän, fr. 143 kop©di tän mageirikän, Pherecr. 74.1 –
2 «cda . . . tän pejwgmnwn | . . . «cda . . . tän melainän, Cephisod.
4 andlia . . . tän leptocidän, Stratt. 25 Ëpodmata . . . tän plän,
Pl. Hp.Mi. 368c a¬ Perikaª (sc. zänai) tän polutelän, X. Smp. 7.2 troc¼
tän kerameikän, An. 4.1.14 gunaik¼ tän eÉprepän, Alex. 58 periter . . .
tän ikelikän, 211 lrkon . . . tän nqrakhrän, Eub.18.4 qÅmon . . . tän
ë Umhtt©wn, 110 kar±da . . . tän kujän, Theophil. 2.1 –2 kÅlika keramen tina
| tän Qhrikle©wn, Hipparch.Com. 1.3–5 dap©dion . . . tän Perikän (n. 42
below), Nicostr.Com. 4.5 ½rniqria . . . tän gr©wn, Asclep. AP 5.181.2 (Gow-
Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 921) tejnou tän çod©nwn, P.Cair.Zen. 59110.25–
6 (257 bc) turoÆ Kunq©ou tän meglwn, Luc. DMort. 20.9 plekun tän
nauphgikän; KG 1.338, Schwyzer 2.118.
Thurii (modern Sibari) was founded by Athens in 444/3 on the site of
Sybaris in S. Italy: H. Philipp, ‘Thurioi’, RE vi.1 A (1937) 646–52, K. Freeman,
‘Thourioi’, G&R 10 (1941) 49–64, O. H. Bullitt, The Search for Sybaris (London
1971) ch. 13, W. D. E. Coulson in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites
(Princeton 1976) 919, O. Taplin, Comic Angels (Oxford 1993) 14–16, A. Muggia,
‘Thurioi’, DNP 12.1 (2002) 515–16.
kaª bakthr©a tän koliän k Lakeda©mono: we know nothing about
Spartan walking-sticks, whether ‘crooked’ or of any other kind. Unwarranted
inferences must not be drawn from Ar. Au. 1281 –3 lakwnomnoun . . .
kutalioj»roun (Porson: kutli ì j»roun codd.), where the carrying of
kutlia exemplifies a craze for Laconian manners. This alludes to the
Spartan kutlh, the official dispatch-staff (T. Kelly, ‘The Spartan Scytale’,
in J. W. Eadie and J. Ober (edd.), The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in
Honor of Chester G. Starr (Lanham etc. 1985) 141 –69). To carry a kutlh
is to be, or to look like, a Spartan. An Athenian carrying a walking-stick
(bakthr©a) is likened to a Spartan carrying a kutlh. This does not mean
that the kutlh was used as a walking-stick. When the Sicilians recognised
41 Also by Boardman ap. Lane Fox 168 n. 248, whose citation of Ath. 228c–e, as evidence
whether for precious metals or for lkuqoi at Thurii, is a red herring.
242
‘the symbol and ethos of Sparta’ in the staff and dress of Gylippus (Plu. Nic.
19.6 n . . . t¦i bakthr©ai kaª täi tr©bwni t¼ Åmbolon kaª t¼ x©wma t¦
prth kaqoränte), Gylippus was carrying a kutlh, not a walking-stick.
At Ar. Lys. 991 kutla Lakwnik does not mean ‘Spartan walking-stick’
(Sommerstein ad loc., with an imaginative description of what it looked like;
rightly Henderson ad loc.). Nor need we entertain the notion that the word
kÅtalon (‘cudgel, club’ LSJ) might describe a Spartan walking-stick (Dunbar
on Ar. Au. 1281 –3). If kÅtalon at Ar. Ec. 78 refers to bakthr©a at 74, it does
so because the walking-stick looks like a cudgel.
A curved or bent stick (bakthr©a kampÅlh) was characteristic of country-
men, a straight stick (½rq or eÉqe±a) of the rich (EM 185.56–8). The curved
stick is mentioned by Ar. fr. 142, and Sophocles claimed to have invented it,
that is (I assume) to have introduced it onto the stage (Test. A 1.26 Radt).
This was probably a straight stick with a curved handle. By contrast, koli»
probably signifies ‘crooked’, that is, with a series of irregular bends, such as
may be seen in Daremberg-Saglio i (1877) 641 fig. 730, J. Boardman, Athenian
Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period (London 1975) figs. 253, 259, 260, id. Athe-
nian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period (London 1989) fig. 178. E. Hec. 65–6
koliäi k©pwni cer¼ | diereidomnh does not help us to elucidate the shape:
Hecuba, ‘leaning on a crooked arm-staff’, supports herself by (presumably)
clasping a chorus-woman’s arm, bent at the elbow. For the circumstances in
which Athenians carried walking-sticks see MacDowell on Ar. V. 33. To carry a
walking-stick all the time might excite disapproval, like walking too quickly or
talking too loudly (D. 37.52). See also de Waele, ‘Stab’, RE iii.2a (1929) 1896–
1901, Stone, Costume 246–7. The gen. tän koliän is like tän troggÅlwn
above.
kaª aÉla©an Pra nujamnhn: same construction as XXX.11
Feidwne©wi mtrwi t¼n pÅndaka e«kekroumnwi, S. Tr. 157–8 dlton gge-
grammnhn | xunqmata (KG 1.125, Schwyzer 2.241, Diggle, Studies on the Text of
Euripides 81). This splendid conjecture (Herwerden 1871, Cobet 1874), restoring
taut and idiomatic style, is vindicated by P, which omits couan. The plural
a]u. laia. was prompted by the ending of Pra, an error of anticipatory
assimilation, like VI.4 toÅtwn (Petersen: -toi AB) to±, VI.8 t (A: ta±
B) . . . ta±, VIII.8 aÉt¼ (Wilamowitz: -tän B, -t¼n A) pntwn, X.6 t
(B: toÆ A) kibwtoÅ, X.11 tiän (B: -änta A) dhm»ta, XXIX.5
dikathr©ou (Darvaris: -©w V) krinomnwi. And Pra then prompted another
error of assimilation, -ou for -hn, shared by P with AB (above, p. 231), compa-
rable to III.3 muthr©oi meg©thn (B: -oi A), IV.7 to± ndon pi kaª aÉtäi
(B: -o± A). It is unwise to found on a]u. laia. the conjecture aÉla©a Pra
nujamna (Stein). The homoioteleuta are unwelcome; and one embroi-
dered tapestry is a sufficient luxury to make the point. In itself, aÉla©an
couan Pra nujamnou (AB) is acceptable: like Hipparch.Com. 1.3–5
243
COMMENTARY
dap©dion n gapht¼n poik©lon, | Pra con kaª grÓpa xÛlei tin, |

tän Perikän,42 IG ii2 1514.8–9 = 1515.3 (349/8 bc) (a citwn©ko) grmmata
cei nujamna, Callix. FGrH 627 f 2 (Ath. 196e–f) japt©de . . . e«k»na
couai tän bailwn nujamna, D.L. 6.102 p±lo . . . cwn nujamna
t dÛdeka toice±a. But couan followed so soon by con is displeasing, and
will have been interpolated (at the prompting of con) to provide a construc-
tion, after the corruption (the earlier corruption, as P shows) of nujamnhn
to -mnou.
The tapestry is embroidered with Persians, probably not because it shows
‘a victory of Greeks over Persians’ (Jebb, comparing the fresco of Marathon in
the Stoa Poikile (II.2n.) and Verg. G. 3.25 purpurea intexti tollant aulaea Britanni,
defeated Britons embroidered on a theatre curtain), but because it comes from
Persia. ‘Persian’ or ‘barbarian’ textiles, often elaborately patterned with exotic
scenes, made luxurious drapes: E. Ion 1159–62 barbrwn Ëjmata depicting
eÉhrtmou naÓ nt©a ëEllhn©in etc., Ar. Ra. 938 parapetmain to±
Mhdiko± (cf. fr. 624), Men. Dysc. 923 paraptama barbarik¼n Ëjant»n,
Hipparch.Com. 1.3–5 (cited above; embroidered, like this, with Persians); Gow
on Theoc. 15.78, F. v. Lorentz, ‘BARBARWN UFAMATA’, MDAI(R) 52 (1937)
166–222 (esp. 198–212), Pritchett 248–50, T. B. L. Webster, BRL 45 (1962)
262–4. The tapestry will have been hung where visitors might see it, perhaps
in a dining room: Hyp. fr. 139 Jensen o¬ . . . nna rconte e¬tiänto n
t¦i toi, perijraxmeno© ti mro aÉt¦ aÉla©ai, Hor. Carm. 3.29.14–15
pauperum | cenae sine aulaeis, S. 2.8.54; Reisch, ‘Aulaeum’, RE ii.2 (1896) 2398–9,
Webster 264–7.
kaª palaitr©dion kon©tran con kaª jairitrion: since toÓto at the
beginning of the next sentence refers to palaitr©dion (this is proved by the
final words toÅtou tªn ¡ pala©tra), it follows that jairitrion is gov-
erned not (like palaitr©dion) by ktaqai but (like kon©tran) by con (same
word order as XIX.2 lpran cwn kaª lj»n, XX.9 k¦po lcana poll
cwn kaª pal; cf. IV.11, X.10, 13, XIV.10, XXVIII.6).
palaitr©dion (P, coni. Cobet 1874) is attested only in PSI 418.7
(iii bc) and Call. Dieg. viii.35 (1.196 Pfeiffer). AB have aÉl©dion palaitria±on,
the former word attested once as diminutive of aÉl» (LSJ ii ‘small tube’),
unexampled in the sense ascribed to it here (LSJ i ‘place of athletic exer-
cises, ring’), the latter unattested. The preceding aÉla©an prompted aÉl©dion
palaitria±on. Similarly VI.5 pandokeÓai kaª pornobok¦ai (-keÓai B),
XIX.3–4 qhriwq¦nai . . . jqeirÛdei (qhriÛdei V), XXI.9 poi¦ai . . .
42 So the lines should be punctuated (Blaydes, as reported, but not followed, by Kassel
and Austin). A Persian-style rug is likelier than a Persian-style griffin. See above on
kaª Qouriak tän troggÅlwn lhkÅqou.
244
ta (poia V), XXII.8 kdäi . . . plÓnai (kplÓnai V), XXVII.8–9

¬ere± . . . ta©ra (¬er V), XXVIII.3 guna±ke . . . kÅne (guna±ke V). See
also XXIII.8n., Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica 223–7, Diggle, Euripidea 496.43
By contrast with the gymnasium, which was normally a public establishment
(§7n.), the palaestra was often a private establishment (K. Schneider 30–2,
Oehler 2010–11, Delorme 261, Kyle 66–7, Glass 162, all cited on §7).
kon©tra is an area or room for wrestling, derived from k»ni, the fine
sand which covered the floor and with which wrestlers sprinkled themselves
before fighting to give a hold on their bodies (LSJ k»ni ii, kon©w i.4, Eust.
Il. 382.32 (1.604.15–16 van der Valk) kon©eqai gr t¼ gwn©zeqai, Âqen
kaª kon©tra, ¡ kat tn pala©tran). It is the term used in literary texts
(Call. fr. 328 ¨ci kon©trai | xeinoi lÅqrwi te kaª eari peplqai, Lyc.
867 plh kon©tra, Plu. 638c (wrestling requires) phloÓ kaª kon©tra
kaª khrÛmato, Ael. NA 6.15 toÆ dr»mou kaª t kon©tra, 11.10 dr»moi
kaª kon©trai kaª gumnia; LSJ 2), in preference to konitrion (IGRom. iv
293a col. i.19, Pergamum ii bc), k»nima (T. Homolle, BCH 23 (1899) 565–7,
J. Jannoray, Le gymnase (Fouilles de Delphes, ii: Topographie et architecture, Paris 1953)
88, J. Pouilloux, BCH Suppl. 4 (1977) 103–23, Delphi iii bc, associated with one
or more jairitria), k»nima (IG v.1(1) 938, Cythera, date uncertain), gk»n-
ima (IG ix.2 31, Hypata, Hellenistic?). On these see Delorme 276–81. Since
jairitrion designates an area or room where a sport was played, k»nin
(AB) makes an odd partner for it (‘a little wrestling-school which has sand and
a jairitrion’). Delorme suggested that k»nin is here used synonymously
with the nouns listed above (kon©tra, konitrion etc.). This is an unlikely
use. Stein suggested that it implies a contrast with phl», so that k»nin con
specifically excludes the alternative mode of wrestling, in mud. This does not
reduce the oddity of the pairing. Meier 1850/1 conjectured koni<trio>n.
This word is not found in a literary text before Vitruvius (conisterium 5.11.2). So I
write kon©<tra>n. Even though P agrees with AB, emendation is legitimate
(above, p. 231).
jairitrion is attested as a component of gymnasia at Delphi (iii bc, cited
above), Delos (IG ix 199 A. 110, iii bc), Pergamum (ii bc, cited above), and during
the Roman period (Delorme 281 –2); also called jair©tra at Delos (Inscr.Délos
1412 a 20, 1417 a i 140, ii bc; Delorme 282, J. Audiat, Exploration archéologique de
Délos, XXVIII: Le gymnase (Paris 1970) 96–7). Pliny had a sphaeristerium in both
of his country-houses: one (Ep. 5.6.27) ‘accommodates several kinds of exer-
cise and several groups of spectators’ (plura genera exercitationis pluresque circulos
capit); of the other (Ep. 2.17.12) no details are given. Another is mentioned by
Suet. Ves. 20, but its use is not specified. Cf. I. Nielsen, Thermae et Balnea: The
43 Add Gorg. Hel. 18 Ûmati . . . Àmma (X: äma A).
245
COMMENTARY
Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths (Aarhus 1990) 1.165, M.
Weber, Antike Badekultur (Munich 1996) 33. Latin sphaeristerium will be derived
from sphaera ‘ball’. But for the Greeks ball games were diversions, no part
of athletic training. They held ‘about the same position as bowls or billiards
with us’ (H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics (London 1964) 24). On ball
games, in general, E. N. Gardiner, Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford 1930)
ch. xviii, W. S. Hett, G&R 1 (1931) 26–9, H. A. Harris, Sport in Greece and Rome
(London 1972) ch. 3, Mendner (above, p. 241) 852–4, I. Weiler, Der Sport bei den
Völkern der alten Welt (Darmstadt 1981) 209–14, S. Laser, Archaeologia Homerica
T (Göttingen 1987) 90–3. It would therefore be surprising to find an area
especially designated for ball games in the palaestra. A sport immeasurably
more important than ball-playing, and one which was practised in gymnasia,
was boxing. In partnership with kon©tran, which designates the wrestling
area, jairitrion will be an area or room for boxing practice (first sug-
gested, and admirably argued, by Delorme 281 –6; argued again by Delorme,
BCH 106 (1982) 53–73, in answer to the objections of G. Roux, BCH 104 (1980)
134–9), from ja±ra, a glove used by boxers in practice (Pl. Lg. 830b, Plu. 80b,
Phryn. ap. AB I.62,44 Poll. 3.150; LSJ Rev. Suppl., correcting LSJ ja±ra 4)
instead of the ¬mnte used in real contests; similarly p©jairon or -ja±ra
(Plu. 825e tän . . . n ta± pala©trai diamacomnwn pija©roi (u.l.
-ai) peridoui t ce±ra). Hence jairomace±n ‘spar’ (Pl. Lg. 830e, Men.
Dysc. 517) and jairomac©a (Aristomen. 13). See further H. Frère in Mélanges de
philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes offerts à Alfred Ernout (Paris 1940) 141 –58,
S. Mendner, ‘Boxhandschuhe im Altertum’, Gymnasium 60 (1953) 20–6, Harris,
Greek Athletes and Athletics 98–9, Gomme and Sandbach on Men. Dysc. 517, M.
Poliakoff, Studies in the Terminology of Greek Combat Sports (Meisenheim 1982) 88–
100, T. F. Scanlon, ‘Greek boxing gloves: terminology and evolution’, Stadion
8–9 (1982–3) 31 –45.
I am not impressed by the objections to Delorme’s interpretation raised
by Poliakoff 100 n. 9 and Stein 110. Poliakoff cites Gal. vi (a mistake for v)
902–3 Kühn (Roman and irrelevant). Stein observes (i) that a jair©tra tän
ìArrhj»rwn on the Acropolis ([Plu.] 839c) must be a place for ball games45
(what the word meant to a writer in the Roman period cannot prescribe what
it meant on Delos several centuries earlier), (ii) that Pliny’s sphaeristeria were
not used for boxing (nor were they in a gymnasium; nor did the Romans have
boxing gloves called sphaerae).
44 In Phryn. read t¼ t ja©ra peridoÅmenon (-donoÅmenon cod.) diamceqai. The
correction is certain: see Pl. Lg. 830b, Plu. 825e (cited below). I do not know who
first proposed it: it is accepted (or proposed) by Frère, adopted (without attribution)
by Mendner, ignored by Poliakoff (all cited below).
45 It was not ‘a kind of indoor football hall’ (Wilson, Khoregia 42). The girls will have
played handball, not football.
246
10 kaª toÓto periÜn crhnnÅnai: for periÛn, IV.13n. The form crhnnÅ-
nai, restored by Foss for cr nÓn e© (AB), was possibly in P ( . . [. . . . . ]ai
Dorandi-Stein, [. . . . ]n. [. ]n. ai Fish; earlier [cr]w. [nnu]nai Bassi (coni. Need-
ham), [c]r. h. [n]n. [u]n. ai K. F. W. Schmidt, [cr]h[nnu]nai Kondo). It presupposes
a present crnnumi, while at X.13 crhnnÅein (crwnn- AB) presupposes crhn-
nÅw. The expected present is k©crhmi (D. 53.12, non-Attic inscriptions cited by
LSJ crw (B) b), with which accords XXX.20 k©craqai. Though unattested,
crnnumi is a legitimate form, bearing the same relationship to k©crhmi as
kernnumi to k©rnhmi, kremnnumi to kr©mnhmi, petnnumi to p©tnhmi. Thematic
forms (-Åw for -umi) appear early in literary texts (e.g. ½mnÅw H. Il. 19.175,
Pi. N. 7.70, deiknÅw Hes. Op. 451, ½llÅw Archil. 26.6, ½rnÅw Pi. O. 13.12,
bennÅw Pi. P. 1.5). Though rarely attested in Attic inscriptions before the end
of the fourth cent. (Meisterhans 191, Threatte 2.619–25), they proliferate in the
koin. See further on XI.8 deiknÅein. The development k©crhmi > crnnumi >
crhnnÅw is paralleled by k©rnhmi > kernnumi > kerannÅw (Alc.Com. 15),
kr©mnhmi > kremnnumi > kremannÅw (kremannÅoui CP 4.3.3). And crhnnÅw
is attested by P.Cair.Zen. 59304.4 (250 bc) crhnnu»me.q.a. See Schwyzer 1.698–9,
P. Chantraine, Morphologie historique du grec (Paris 1964) 218–20. Since -Ånai is
supported here by P, it is prudent to accept it and to suppose that -Åein at X.13
is either a legitimate alternative or a mistake. There is no good reason to sub-
stitute kicrnai (Needham) or cr¦ai (Ussing, already cr¦ai e© Petersen).
For the sense of the verb, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 29.
to± ojita±, to± ¾plomcoi, to± rmoniko±: other asyndetic tricola
of nouns at VI.9, XVI.10, 11, XXV.8 (conj.); infinitives VI.5, XXI.10; clauses
VI.6 (XXV.4n.). Gymnasia and palaestras were regularly used, from the fourth
cent. onwards, for public displays by sophists, musicians, and the like (Oehler
2014, Delorme 316–36).
to± ojita± (P) is preferable to to± jilo»joi to± ojita± (AB),
because (i) T. has several asyndetic tricola (listed above), no tetracolon; (ii)
interpolation is more likely than accidental or deliberate omission (the notion
of Immisch 1923 and Edmonds 1929 that an uncomplimentary reference to
philosophers was suppressed by Philodemus, himself a philosopher, is far-
fetched), especially since AB have another interpolation (couan) and a quasi-
interpolation (aÉl©dion) just above; (iii) philosophers and sophists are an insuf-
ficiently varied pair, when compared with the pair which follows; (iv) public
displays suit sophists more than philosophers. Bloch had already proposed to
delete to± ojita± as a gloss on to± jilo»joi.
¾plomcoi (‘drill-sergeant’ LSJ, ‘instructor in fighting with weapons’ Rev.
Suppl.; also ¾plomch Pl. Euthd. 299c) taught the art of fighting in heavy
armour: attack and defence, drill, manoeuvres, possibly tactics. Like sophists,
they were itinerant fee-taking professional teachers, who promoted business by
public displays of their techniques (pide©knuqai Pl. La. 179e, 183c). We hear
247
COMMENTARY
their typical commands in XXVII.3. Such instruction was later institution-

alised as part of the ephebate ([Arist.] Ath. 42.3). See J. K. Anderson, Military
Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1970) 86–7,
E. L. Wheeler, GRBS 23 (1982) 223–33, Chiron 13 (1983) 1 –20.46
rmoniko© are ‘musical theorists’ (first in Arist., then T. fr. 89.2 Wimmer,
716.17 Fortenbaugh). Some of them lectured or gave demonstrations in public.
For exemplification of the term (LSJ is inadequate) and of specific theorists,
M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music 218, 367–8.
nepide©knuqai· kaª aÉt¼ n ta± pide©xein: the double compound (P,
coni. Cobet 1858) is more effective than pid- (AB). A transitive use is attested
earlier (but uncertainly) in Isoc. 19.24 n aÉto± gr toÅtoi . . . nepedeixmhn
(Priscian. 17.169: ped- Isoc. codd.: ned- Coray) tn eÎnoian; absolute, as here,
Ph. De Abr. 190 (4.42 Cohn-Wendland) gkallwp©zeqai kaª nepide©knuqai
(sc. n rhm©ai), Lib. Decl. 16.28 Ýikod»mhtai t dikatria to± ponhro±
mn nal©keqai, to± d gaqo± nepide©knuqai. Compounds with n- are
regularly used as ‘final-consecutive’ (see on XVI.6 pirryai) infinitives: Hdt.
2.178.1, 6.102, 7.59.2, 9.2.1, 9.7b.2, Th. 2.20.4, 2.44.1, 2.74.2, S. OC 790,
E. Hi. 1096, Ph. 727, Ba. 508, Ar. Eq. 782, Pax 1228, Au. 38, 122, Eup. 70.3,
269.1, Pherecr. 70.3, And. 3.27, Pl. Phd. 84a, Phdr. 228e, X. Mem. 3.8.8, Smp.
2.18, 3.8, D. 18.198, Aeschin. 3.150, Arist. Pol. 1331 b 12; KG 2.14 Anmerk. 12,
J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax 2 (Basel 1924) 177–8, Cope on Arist. Rh.
2.4.12 (1381 a 29). For pide©knuqai of displays by sophists and the like see LSJ
i.2.b, and on ¾plomcoi above. For the noun p©deixi, LSJ i.2–3, Delorme
317 n. 4.; the corruption (po- AB), XVI.2, 14, Diggle, Euripidea 290.
Ìteron peiinai peidn ¢dh ugkaqäntai, ¯n ì ¾ tero ephi tän
qewmnwn pr¼ t¼n teron: this is a makeshift text, combining elements
from P and AB. Consistent with the traces in P is e«..[inai] .pe.i.[dn ¢d]h. |
unkaqän. [tai ¯]n[a ti e]|p. [hi] tän q. [e]w[m]nw[n. At the beginning, e .
[ Dorandi-Stein, e . . [ Fish (‘base of a vertical followed by the bottom of a
curved letter’). Not p. [eiinai], which is incompatible with Fish’s diagnosis,
and in any case too long. And probably not t. o. [imo (Dorandi-Stein). For
then e.pe.i.[ (Bassi, Fish; epe[ Dorandi-Stein) will have to be .pe.i.[inai, leav-
ing insufficient room for a temporal conjunction: .pe.i. [inai pn] (Edmonds
1910) is too long; pei[inai n] (contemplated by Dorandi-Stein) might fit,
but n is unsuitable, as they acknowledge. Better therefore e«.. [inai] .pe.i.[dn
¢d]h. (Dorandi-Stein, who describe the final trace as compatible with i or
the right vertical of h, m, n, p). ¢dh had already been proposed by Edmonds
1910 (.pe.i.[inai ¢dh] . u. [g]kaqh. [m]n. [wn). peidn, although unique in this
46 The ¾plomcoi in the inscription cited by Stein are not instructors but youths who
have won prizes for skill with arms at a festival in the second century. This is a different
matter.
248
work (Âtan is regular), is very common elsewhere (several instances in T.); cf.
pn II.4n., peid XXVIII.2, and, for peidn ¢dh, VII.10 Âtan . . . ¢dh.
Alternatively, e«..[inai] .pe.i.[ta Âta]n. (Stefanis 1994b), where Âtan is welcome
enough, but peita (so placed) is unstylish. Then, where Dorandi-Stein read
¯]n[a . . . . . ] |. [. . ] (| p[. . ] N), either ¯]n[a ephi] | t. i.[] (Dorandi-Stein) or ¯]n[a
ti e]|p. [hi] (¯]n. ì e.[phi ti] Edmonds 1910; ¯]n ì [trwi ti e]p[hi] Kondo;
pinai ¯n ì ephi ti for peiin p© (AB) Madvig 1868). For ti with following
gen., XXVIII.3n. ¯]n ì [llo llwi e]|p. [hi] (Stein formerly) is too long, and
so is ¯]n ì [kato e]|p. [hi] (Stefanis). ¯]n[a ka]|t.[o] tän qewmnw[n ephi
t]oÅtou (Stefanis) would give false division at ka|to (see on §5 kaª par ì
aËt¼n kaq©aqai), and there is not enough room for ephi in place of Âti.
AB had a fuller text than P at the end: there is no room in P for pr¼ t¼n
teron. But P had a fuller text than AB in the middle, where AB are incoherent
and probably lacunose. We may accommodate the extra matter from P in a
lacuna in AB, except that (in view of t¼n teron) the missing subject in AB was
more likely ¾ tero than ti. Although ¾ tero could have been separately
omitted later in the clause (<¾ tero> pr¼ t¼n teron Edmonds 1929),
we need posit only a single lacuna if we write < . . . ¾ tero> ephi (H.-G.
Nesselrath ap. Stein). The expression ¾ tero . . . pr¼ t¼n teron, where
we might expect tero . . . pr¼ teron (many, beginning with Pauw, have
deleted t»n), does not here limit the numbers to two, as it normally would,
but singles out two as representative of a larger number, as X. Cyr. 8.2.28 o¬
ple©one kpodÜn boÅlonto ¾ tero t¼n teron genqai, HG 2.2.3 ¾ tero
täi trwi paraggllwn, An. 6.1.5 nthan präton mn Qrike kaª pr¼
aÉl¼n Ýrcanto Æn to± Âploi . . . tlo d ¾ tero t¼n teron pa©ei. The
pleonastic Ìteron p- is idiomatic (KG 2.583–4). We do not want Ëterän
(Coray before Fraenkel and Groeneboom; Ëtere±n Pauw). For ugkaqäntai,
XXVIII.5n. For the idea, Luc. Rh.Pr. 22 n ta± kroei met pnta e«inai
cr, p©hmon gr.
We may explain (a) the text of P by assuming that Philodemus simplified at
both beginning (e«inai for Ìteron peiinai) and end (ti for ¾ tero . . .
pr¼ t¼n teron) and (b) the text of AB by assuming a saut du même au même
(Ìteron peiinai (Foss 1858: peiin AB) pei<dn ¢dh ugkaqäntai ¯n ì ¾
tero ephi> tän qewmnwn).
Âti ë ë ToÅtou tªn ¡ pala©tra ì ì: II.8n.
249
VI
THE MAN WHO HAS LOST ALL SENSE
Introductory note
ìAp»noia is ‘loss of sense’ (as distinct from noia ‘lack of sense’, and parnoia
‘madness’), manifested in behaviour which, to a hostile observer, appears irra-
tional or irresponsible. The concept has no place in Aristotle’s ethical sys-
tem but belongs rather to the polemical vocabulary of the orators: D. 18.249
oÎt ì p»noia wiklou oÎte ukojant©a Filokrtou oÎte DiÛndou kaª
Melntou man©a oÎt ì ll ì oÉdn pe©raton §n toÅtoi kat ì moÓ, 25.32 oÉc
¾rq ì Âti t¦ jÅew aÉtoÓ kaª polite©a oÉ logim¼ oÉd ì a«dÜ oÉdem©a
ll ì p»noi ì ¡ge±tai, mllon d ì Âlon t ì p»noi ì ¡ toÅtou polite©a;,
33 (contrasted with noÓ, jrne gaqa©, and pr»noia), 34 (coupled with
na©deia), 26.19, 44.15, 58 (coupled with propteia), 61.4, Hyp. Lyc. 6, Dem.
7, Din. 1.82, 104. Speakers in Thucydides use it to describe the reckless daring
to which an army is reduced by desperation (1.82.4, 7.67.4). No adjectival
form is attested (E. Hel. 1321 p»nou coni. Verrall), and the participle po-
nenohmno is used in its stead: Th. 7.81.5, X. HG 7.5.12, Isoc. 8.93 (quoted on
§6), D. 19.69, 25.32, 43.41; adverbial ponenohmnw X. HG 7.2.8, Isoc. 6.75.
Menander has the verb once: Pk. 375 ponen»hqe, pr¼ qeän; (for forcibly
detaining a free woman). In Nicol.Com. 1.43 p»noia is listed among the ills
of the parasite.
The p»noia described by Theophrastus is not ‘recklessness’ (Jebb), ‘wilful
disreputableness’ (Edmonds), ‘shamelessness’ (Rusten), ‘lack of constraint,
impropriety’ (LSJ Rev. Suppl.), translations warped by the spurious definition.
Nor is it anything so dramatic as ‘the shameless inconsequentiality which on a
sufficiently spectacular scale labels the agent a psychopath’ (Dover, Greek Pop-
ular Morality 149 n. 2). The sketch exemplifies loss of sense or good judgement,
manifested in unsuitable or reprehensible behaviour. If we ignore the inter-
polations and an uncured corruption, this (in bald summary) is how the man
behaves: he dances an obscene dance while sober (§3), demands an entrance fee
from ticket-holders (§4), engages in opprobrious trades (§5), leaves his mother
uncared for, is arrested for theft and spends much of his time in gaol (§6),
is constantly in court as defendant or plaintiff (§8), and sets himself up as a
patron of low tradesmen, whom he funds at exorbitant interest (§9). These are
the actions of a man who has lost all sense of how to behave. The suicide of
Hedda Gabler was p»noia in the eyes of Judge Brack: ‘One doesn’t do that
kind of thing.’
250
VI: THE MAN WHO HAS LOST ALL SENSE
[1 ] Definition
The definition is inadequate and inept. It was possibly known to Philodemus
(Perª kolake©a), P. Herc. 223 fr. 8. 1 –5 (M. Gigante and G. Indelli, CErc 8
(1978) 130) ponenohmnon . . . Ëpomn[o]nta pornobo[ko±] kaª telÛnai
kaª pant[opÛ]lai di b©ou zugomace[±n, where Ëpomn[o]nta may have
been suggested by Ëpomon (the rest alludes to §5).
Ëpomon a«crän rgwn kaª l»gwn: this ought to mean ‘tolerance or
endurance of disgraceful action and speech’ (LSJ ii, as e.g. [Pl.] Def. 412c
karter©a Ëpomon lÅph, for which see Ingenkamp 42–3). While ‘endurance
of disgraceful speech’ would suit, and may have been prompted by, the spurious
kakä koÓai in §2, the expression as a whole must be designed to mean
‘tolerance of [doing] . . . and [speaking] . . .’ (LSJ iii, Chadwick, Lexicographica
Graeca 309; see also Stein 125–6). This is nonsense. And the pairing of action
and speech, typical of the definitions (def. I n.), is faulty, since the sketch does
not illustrate speech. Ëperbol, a conjecture reported by Casaubon (see the
Introduction, p. 54 n. 172), does not appeal. As a correction of dikaiol»gwn
(AB) there is little to choose between kaª l»gwn (ed. Basil.a before Stephanus)47
and te kaª l»gwn (Gale). Definitions I, VIII, XIII, XIV have ka© alone in
similar phrases; and T. has only one instance of te . . . ka© in this work (XIII.10),
although he uses it commonly elsewhere (Müller (1874) 36–40). But the author
of the prooemium affects te (. . .) ka© (five instances), and there is no reason why
the author of the definitions should not have used it.
2 toioÓt» ti: ti (B) not tin (A); I.2n.
2–3 [½m»ai . . . mlei dunat¼ ka©]: sense and style condemn these words.
Clear indications of interpolation are the generalising adjectival style (in
place of specific exemplification by infinitives) of täi ¢qei gora±» ti kaª
naeurmno kaª pantopoi» (there is another interpolation of generalising
adjectives at XIX.4), and the clumsy resumption of the infinitive construction
with mlei dunat¼ ka© (§8n. init., VII.6n.) and its abnormal asyndeton (mlei
d is invariable: see on §9 <kaª> . . . d, II.9n.).
½m»ai tacÅ, kakä koÓai, loidorhq¦nai dunamnoi: if dunmeno (AB)
is retained, it is unclear whether kakä koÓai is to be constructed with o³o
or with dunmeno. If with o³o, the participial phrase loidorhq¦nai dun-
meno is appended feebly (deleted by Pasquali before Edmonds 1929); if with
dunmeno, the asyndeton is intolerable (koÓai <kaª> loidorhq¦nai ed.
47 This (or a variant of it) also appears in descendants of A (Torraca (1974) 88, Stefanis
(1994a) 85, 118).
251
COMMENTARY
pr.; loidorhq¦nai del. Darvaris before Cobet 1854). It is also unclear whether
loidorhq¦nai is to be taken as passive in sense, duplicating kakä koÓai (cf.
J. Vahlen, Opuscula Academica 2 (Leipzig 1908) 383–7), or as active (LSJ ii).
Deletion of dunmeno (Meier 1850/1) clarifies the construction of kakä
koÓai. But dunamnoi (Foss 1858) also clarifies loidorhq¦nai (by showing
that it is active in sense), and effects so great an improvement so economically
that it deserves to be accepted, even if the sentence is an interpolation. Stein’s
claim that dunamnoi would need the article cannot be upheld, even if the
sentence is genuine (see VII.7 (conj.), XI.6, XII.9, 11, XX.3, 4 (conj.), XXV.4,
XXVIII.5 (conj.), KG 1.608–9; singular part. without article, II.2n.); much
less, if it is not. If we retain dunmeno, we must conclude at once that dun-
meno and anything which we link to it are interpolated, since this participial
style is alien to Theophrastus. If we accept dunamnoi, we must conclude that
kakä koÓai at least is interpolated. For while ‘to swear an oath pat’ and
‘to abuse the powerful’ might exemplify ‘loss of sense’, the intervening ‘to get
a bad reputation’ does not. In Plu. Alc. 13.5 the naicunt©a and p»noia
of Hyperbolus are exemplified by his indifference to what people said against
him (trepto . . . pr¼ t¼ kakä koÅein kaª paq àn ½ligwr©ai d»xh).
But the expression trepto . . . pr¼ t¼ kakä koÅein shows how inade-
quate is the bare o³o . . . kakä koÓai (cf. S. Halliwell, CQ 41 (1991) 287,
who is suitably cautious). Something more would be needed, like <kÜn>
kakä koÓai (Herwerden). It would be possible to retain the two other infin.
phrases (writing ½m»ai tacÅ, loidorhq¦nai dunamnoi, ½rce±qai ktl.). But
both ½m»ai tacÅ and loidorhq¦nai dunamnoi are displeasingly curt, and
½rce±qai njwn ktl. is a better opening illustration.
täi ¢qei gora±» ti kaª naeurmno kaª pantopoi»: the noun §qo
appears in epilogues I and XXVII, and at VIII.2 (where text and meaning are
uncertain). For its use in general see O. Thimme, FÅi Tr»po ö Hqo (diss.
Göttingen 1935). For gora±o (‘belonging to the agora’, hence ‘common,
vulgar’), Ar. Eq. 181 (ponhr¼ kx gor), 218, Ra. 1015, Pl. Prt. 347c, Arist.
EN 1158a 21, Pol. 1319a 28; LSJ ii, Kassel and Austin on Ar. fr. 488.2, Whitehead
on Hyp. Ath. 3, Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 185, id. ‘Encounters in the
Agora’ 218–19, also on §9 gora©wn; similarly forensis (Brink on Hor. Ars 245).
For ti, V.3n. The figurative use of naeurmno (literal at XI.2) is attested
for Anacr. 5 Page (Phot. A 1687 Theodoridis). pantopoi» is not attested
again before ii ad (LSJ, Stein 127). No need for pantodap» (Darvaris before
Usener) or panto±o (Navarre 1924).
3 ½rce±qai njwn t¼n k»rdaka: a sober man does not dance (Cic. Mur.
13 nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit; cf. XII.14, XV.10, Arnott on
Alex. 102.1 –2). Least of all does he dance the k»rdax, which only drunk-
enness can excuse. The k»rdax was an obscene dance, associated with the
252
comic stage, performed by drunkards: Ar. Nu. 555 proqeª aÉtäi graÓn
meqÅhn toÓ k»rdako oÌneka, D. 2.18 tn kaq ì ¡mran kra©an toÓ b©ou
kaª mqhn kaª kordakimoÅ (cf. 19 perª aÉt¼n e²nai . . . toioÅtou nqrÛpou
o¯ou mequqnta ½rce±qai toiaÓta o³a gÜ nÓn ½knä pr¼ Ëm
½nomai), Mnesim. 4.18 pr»poi cwre±, lpetai k»rdax, Alciphr. 2.15.2
pi»meqa e« mqhn . . . kaª Âti pitdeio kordak©zein ktl., Jul. Mis. 350b
oÉk cwn meqÅein oÉd kordak©zein. The verb is applied figuratively to vulgar
and unsuitable behaviour by Hyp. Phil. 7 e« d ì o[ei] kordak©zwn kaª gelw-
topoiän, Âper poie±n ewqa, pª tän dikathr©wn pojeÅxeqai, e[Éq]h
e². See H. Schnabel, Kordax (Munich 1910), Warnecke, ‘Kordax’, RE xi.2 (1922)
1382–5, E. Roos, Die tragische Orchestik im Zerrbild der altattischen Komödie (Lund
1951) 153–66, A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (Oxford
2
1962) 167–9.
The scholium in B e²do a«cr kaª prepoÓ ½rcew (see the Intro-
duction, p. 44) is identical, save for word-order, with S D. 2.18 (1.71 Dilts) and
S Luc. Bacch. 1 (p. 9 Rabe); cf. S Tzetz. Ar. Pl. 279 (p. 80 Koster).
†
kaª prowpe±on cwn n kwmikäi coräi† : to dance the k»rdax ‘while
sober and wearing a mask in a comic chorus’ is nonsense. Introduction of a
negative (<oÉk> cwn Casaubon, koÉ for ka© Pauw, <m> cwn Schneider)48
can be at best only a partial solution. Failure to wear a mask might be deemed
p»noia, if the mask is regarded as a disguise and therefore a guarantee of
anonymity. But ‘sober and not wearing a mask in a comic chorus’ is an odd
pairing and not a natural way of saying ‘sober and not in a comic chorus (where
the wearing of a mask excuses participation in the dance)’. Dover’s paraphrase
(on Ar. Nu. 540) ‘dancing the k»rdax when neither drunk nor a member of
a comic chorus is a product of p»noia’ highlights the problem, by failing
to take notice of the mask: ‘wearing a mask in a comic chorus’ says much
more than ‘being a member of a comic chorus’. Replacement of ka© with
Þ (Unger before Sitzler), ãper (Naber), ã <ti> (Groeneboom) avails
nothing. Better (but still not good enough) <o³on> n (‘without a mask <such
as one might wear> in a comic chorus’). Wachsmuth (ap. Meister) proposed
koÉ prowpe±on cwn n kwmatikäi coräi, on the strength of D. 19.287,
where an individual is vilified who n ta± pompa± neu toÓ proÛpou (u.l.
prowpe©ou) kwmzei (revels in the procession at the Dionysia without a mask).
What propriety he is transgressing is unclear: perhaps he is behaving with the
indecency of a satyr, without wearing a satyr mask (see MacDowell ad loc.,
F. Frontisi-Ducroux, DHA 18.1 (1992) 245–56, Wilson, Khoregia 345 n. 213).
At all events, a ‘comastic chorus’ is otherwise unknown, and this passage of
D. gives no support to it. Navarre 1918 implausibly suggests that the words are
48 The latter is reported from Laur. 60.18 (7 Wilson) by Torraca (1974) 88, Stefanis
(1994a) 103, 118.
253
COMMENTARY
a relic of Sb (quoted above), which originally ran e²do a«cr kaª prepoÓ
½rcew <Á Ýrce±t» ti> pr- ktl. Perhaps the text is lacunose.
4 kaª n qaÅmai d toÆ calkoÓ klgein kaq ì katon periÛn: the word
qaÅmata embraces puppet-shows, juggling, circuses and other kinds of popular
entertainment (songs at XXVII.7); LSJ i.2, Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen 2.494–
5, G. Lafaye, ‘Praestigiator’, in Daremberg-Saglio iv.1 (1904–7) 628, W. Kroll,
‘Qaumatopoio©’, RE Suppl. vi (1935) 1278–82, B. Huß, ICS 22 (1997) 43–4,49
Olson and Sens on Matro 1.121. calko± are coins worth as little as an eighth of
an obol (M. N. Tod, NC 6 (1946) 47–62, V. Schmidt, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu
Herondas (Berlin 1968) 43–5). Cf. X.6 tr©calkon, XXVIII.4, XXX.9. klgein
is the technical term for levying payments of various kinds (LSJ ii); cf. §9. For
periÛn (Needham spelled periiÛn) and the corruption, IV.13n.
kaª mceqai toÅtwn to± t¼ Åmbolon jroui kaª pro±ka qewre±n
xioÓi: ‘quarrel with’ (as XIV.9, XXIII.8, Men. DE 62, Dysc. 355, LSJ ii;
figurative mchn VII.7) ‘those of them who . . .’ (for the construction see on
V.7 tän . . . gumna©wn n toÅtoi). toÅtoi to± (AB) is impossible: it does
not mean ‘those who’ (Rusten), which is to± alone (so d), but ‘these, who’.
For the corruption see on V.9 kaª aÉla©an ktl. For the resumptive use of the
pronoun see on I.2 kaª toÅtoi. For qewre±n, IV.5n.
The Åmbolon was probably some kind of admission ticket (Pickard-
Cambridge, DFA 270–2; cf. A. L. Boegehold, Hesperia 29 (1960) 393–401,
M. Lang and M. Crosby, The Athenian Agora, x: Weights, Measures and Tokens
(Princeton 1964) 76–8, P. Gauthier, Symbola (Nancy 1972) 73–6, W. Müri, ‘SUM-
BOLON’, in Griechische Studien: Ausgewählte wort- und sachgeschichtliche Forschungen
zur Antike (Basel 1976) 1 –44 (p. 7 for this passage), R. Hurschmann, ‘Eintritts-
und Erkennungsmarken’, DNP 3 (1997) 917–18); less likely a ‘receipt’ given by
the collector on his first round, which he repudiates on his second, claiming
that it has changed hands in the meantime (Meister). The second participial
phrase probably amplifies the first (‘those who are in possession of a ticket and
so expect to get a free seat’), as XII.9 khko»ta kaª memaqhk»ta, 11 qÅonta
kaª nal©konta, XVIII.9 to± e«lhj»i ti par ì aËtoÓ kaª lgoui, XXIX.2
to± ¡tthmnoi kaª dhmo©ou gäna Ýjlhk»i. Rusten (translating ka© as
‘or’) supposes a distinction between those who possess a Åmbolon (which they
have paid for) and those who regard themselves as entitled to a free seat (and
so have not paid for a Åmbolon). ‘As often in this work (e.g., the next sentence),
ka© links alternatives’ (Rusten 171, referring to Denniston 292). Denniston offers
nothing comparable; and in the next sentence ka© links items which may (in
practical reality) be alternatives, but whose alternative status is not at issue. If
49 His very plausible conjecture qaÅmain for qaÅmati at X. Smp. 2.1 was anticipated by
A. Meineke, Alciphronis Rhetoris Epistolae (Leipzig 1853) 132.
254
the activities mentioned here are to be seen as clear alternatives, I should expect
¢ for ka© (giving a structure like XXIV.7 toÆ pwloÓnt ti £ miqoumnou).
For ¢ in other verbal disjunctions, VII.7, XVI.3, XXVI.3, XXX.19 (conj.).
Conjectures such as <oÉ> jroui (Coray), <m> j- (Navarre 1920), to±
<dª> (Diels), to± <dª> . . . ja©noui (Pasquali) are misguided: if the spec-
tators are cheating, the collector’s behaviour is not reprehensible.
5 dein¼ d ka©: §9n.

pandokeÓai kaª pornobok¦ai kaª telwn¦ai: these three roles (pan-
dokeÅ, pornobok», telÛnh) and the first of the following three (k¦rux)
appear on a list of disreputable professions (b©oi j ì o³ n ti ½neidiqe©h) in
Poll. 6.128. The innkeeper is disreputable because he takes in all-comers, tran-
sient and by implication low-class, who cannot find lodging with respectable
hosts; cf. XX.9, Pl. Lg. 918d pnta t perª tn kaphle©an kaª mpor©an kaª
pandoke©an gnh diabblhta© te kaª n a«cro± ggonen ½ne©dein. Brothel-
keepers are linked with ‘usurers lending small sums at high interest’ (like this
man, §9) by Arist. EN 1121 b 32–1122 a 3; cf. Millett, Lending and Borrowing 182,
Whitehead on Hyp. Ath. 3. The tax-collector is a regular object of abuse: Ar.
Eq. 248 (Cleon) telÛnhn kaª jragga kaª Crubdin rpag¦, Philonid.
5 pornotelänai, Apollod.Com. 13.12–13 yeÅdet ì piorke± marture± dikor-
raje± | klptei telwne± çaidiourge±, Xeno 1 pnte telänai, pnte e«ªn
rpage, Luc. Pseudol. 30 e ti naicÅntw a«te±, mllon d proaite± kaª
lwpodute± kaª telwne±. The right to collect a tax was often sold by auction
to the highest bidder, and the purchaser hoped to collect more in taxes than
he had paid (W. Schwahn, ‘Telänai’, RE v.1 a (1934) 418–21, H. Michell, The
Economics of Ancient Greece (Cambridge 1940) 356–7, MacDowell on And. 1.73
Ýn, W. Eder, ‘Telonai’, DNP 12.1 (2002) 103).
kaª mhdem©an a«crn rga©an podokimai, ll khrÅttein,
mageireÅein, kubeÅein: ‘and not reject . . . but (be ready) to . . .’. The infinitives
in the second clause are constructed not with dein» but with a positive notion
mentally supplied in opposition to the negative podokimai, as e.g. E. Ph.
1217–18 oÉk eaa . . . pelqe±n ll (sc. kleua) mhnÓai (KG 2.566–7).
Between the alternative word orders (a«crn rga©an B, r- a«- A) there is
nothing to choose (II.3n.). For the asyndetic tricolon, V.10n.
khrÅttein is ‘be an auctioneer’ (LSJ i.1.b, iii.1), as D. 44.4 diatele± gr
n Peiraie± khrÅttwn· toÓto d ì tªn . . . por©a nqrÛpoi tekmrion,
not ‘herald’ (Dover, Greek Popular Morality 41, whose citations from tragedy are
not to the point). Similarly k¦rux fr. 97.1 Wimmer (650.2 Fortenbaugh), not
‘herald’ (Fortenbaugh et al.) but ‘auctioneer’ (LSJ i.3; add Ar. Ec. 757, fr. 339,
D. 51.22); transitive (po)khrÅttein (unapo- Men. Sam. 509) is regularly ‘sell
(or offer for sale) by auction’ (Konstantakos 134). Cf. Juv. 7.5–6 (cum) nec foedum
alii nec turpe putarent | praecones fieri, Oehler, ‘Keryx’, RE xi.1 (1921) 350–2.
255
COMMENTARY
mgeiro in the fourth century normally described a man who was hired
in the Agora to butcher and cook sacrificial animals. Comedy portrays him as
conceited, garrulous, rapacious, and consorting with slaves. Bibliography in
Arnott on Alex. 24, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.11 ; add J. Wilkins, The Boastful
Chef: The Discourse of Food in Greek Comedy (Oxford 2000).
kubeÅein ‘dicing’ is routinely damned by comic poets (Ar. V. 75, Ec. 672, Pl.
243), orators (Lys. 14.27, 16.11, Isoc. 7.48, 15.287, Aeschin. 1.42, 53, 75, 95),
historians (Theopomp. FGrHist 115 f 49), and philosophers (Socrates in X. Mem.
1.2.57, Oec. 1.20, Arist. EN 1122 a 7–11). See on V.9 dorkade©ou traglou.
6 <ka©>: something must have dropped out, because there is a clear break
between the three preceding infinitives (not constructed with dein»), which
round off the list of disreputable occupations, and the three following (con-
structed with dein»), which refer to criminal behaviour and its consequences.
Asyndeton is impossible. The obvious remedy is <ka©> (Herwerden). Not
<dein¼ d ka©> (Meier 1850/1), which opened the previous sentence and
is never repeated in the same sketch (VII.6n.); nor <dunat¼ d ka©> (also
Meier), an adjective unwanted here (II.9n.) even after it has been eliminated in
§3. I am not attracted by the notion (Kassel ap. Stein 124 n. 1 ; see I.2n.) that the
sentence tn mhtra ktl. began life as a marginal addition by Theophrastus,
which a copyist incorporated without a connective. For the following asyndetic
trio of clauses, V.10n.
tn mhtra m trjein: a law attributed to Solon required sons to look
after elderly parents (D.L. 1.55 n ti m trjhi toÆ gona, timo tw);
Harrison 1.78, Dover, Greek Popular Morality 273–5, MacDowell, Law 92, Rhodes
on [Arist.] Ath. 56.6. Neglect of parents is a manifestation of p»noia in Isoc.
8.93 e ti pantpain ponenohmno tª kaª mq ì ¬erän mte gonwn mte
pa©dwn mt ì llou mhden¼ jront©zei.
pgeqai klop¦: the procedure known as pagwg (LSJ iii), whereby
certain types of criminal caught in the act might be arrested and carried off
to the authorities. See Harrison 2.222–9, M. H. Hansen, Apagoge, Endeixis and
Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes (Odense 1976) 36–53, MacDow-
ell 148–9, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 52.1, D. Cohen, Theft in Athenian Law (Munich
1983) ch. 2, Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law 117–18.
t¼ demwtrion ple©w cr»non o«ke±n £ tn aËtoÓ o«k©an: cf. Din. 2.2
n täi demwthr©wi ple©w cr»non £ xw diattrije, Pl. Ps. 1172 carcerem,
patriam tuam (uestram domum Serv. A. 1.140), Cic. Agr. 2.101 in carcere habitan-
dum, Ver. 5.143, Liv. 3.57.4. The prison was reserved primarily for persons
awaiting trial or execution, or with outstanding fines or debts to the state: Har-
rison 2.177, 241 –4, MacDowell 166–7, 256–7, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 52.1,
D. Allen, ‘Imprisonment in classical Athens’, CQ 47 (1997) 121 –35, ead. The
World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens (Princeton 2000)
256
226–30, V. Hunter, ‘The prison of Athens’, Phoenix 51 (1997) 296–326. To

replace demwtrion with kramon (M) is perverse (see the Introduction, p. 43
n. 146). aËtoÓ (Stephanus: aÉ- AB) is also found in d (Stefanis tells me) and as
a correction by the first hand in Cantabr. (4 Wilson).
[7]This sentence describes a tiresome loud-mouthed haranguer of crowds, and

is clumsy in expression and trite in content. The finite verbs, characteristic of
the epilogues, interrupt the infinitive structure. Meister suspected too little (kaª
metaxÆ ktl.), Diels too much (all of §§7–10). Ussher wrongly imputes deletion
of §7 to Ast, who suspected the whole sketch.
kaª oÕto d ì n e²nai d»xeien tän ktl.: The phrase n e²nai d»xeien is
characteristic of the definitions (def. I n.), and the clause has the same structure
as the sentence interpolated at XVI.12 kaª tän perirrainomnwn pª qaltth
pimelä d»xeien n e²nai. The subject of d»xeien cannot be toÓto (AB); unless
the subject is personal, the following aÉtoÓ has nothing to refer to, and even
an interpolator should do better than this. oÕto (C. Gesner 1559, before
Casaubon) is far preferable to toÅtwn (Needham) and toioÓto (Foss 1858).
For the genitive, KG 1.372.
periitamnwn toÆ Àclou: ‘gathering crowds round them’, a rare use (X.
Cyr. 7.5.41, LSJ a.ii); cf. epil. VIII peritei poioÅmenoi. The remarkable
claim that ‘to gather a crowd . . . was, at Athens, a capital offence’ (Ussher 72,
citing no evidence) derives from Casaubon (on epil. VIII), who cites Sen. Con.
3.8. In default of other evidence, disbelief is advisable.
kaª prokaloÅntwn, meglhi t¦i jwn¦i kaª parerrwgu©ai
loidoroumnwn kaª dialegomnwn pr¼ aÉtoÅ: the accumulation of
insufficiently varied participles is displeasing. The last is an anticlimax,
which should not be disguised by over-translation (‘argue with’, Edmonds,
Rusten). diateinomnwn (Naber) would be an improvement (X.14n.); less so
prolaloÅntwn (Naber). Petersen deleted loidoroumnwn (which recurs in
the spurious §2 and epil.). There is no need for prokaloÅntwn <kaª> m-
(Coray before Darvaris and Hartung). For meglhi t¦i jwn¦i (repeated in
the epilogue), IV.2n. For parerrwgu©ai ‘broken (by passion)’, Plu. TG 2.6
tracun»menon . . . t¦i jwn¦i kaª pararrhgnÅmenon di ì ½rgn (LSJ ii.2, De
Martino in F. De Martino and A. H. Sommerstein (edd.), Lo Spettacolo delle Voci
(Bari 1995) 1.54).
kaª metaxÆ o¬ mn pro©ain, o¬ d p©ain prªn koÓai aÉtoÓ: while all
this is going on (metaxÅ) some people approach, in response to the noise, but
others do not stay to listen. If prªn koÓai aÉtoÓ could mean ‘before hearing
him out’ (Jebb, al.), rather than simply ‘before hearing him’, the point would
be different: nobody hears the whole speech, because the audience comes and
goes. But that is not the natural sense of the words (contrast VII.7, where a
similar point, that people leave in the middle of a speech, is made clearly),
257
COMMENTARY
and it is unwise to impose this sense by emendation (<di>akoÓai Unger

1886, aÉtoÓ <t¼ pn> Diels, toÓ Âlou Meiser). It is in the next clause that
emendation is needed; and there I shall suggest an emendation which justifies
the most natural rendering of prªn koÓai aÉtoÓ. With the verbal antithesis
cf. Hdt. 1.199.2 a¬ mn gr prorcontai, a¬ d prcontai. The transposition
o¬ mn metaxÅ (Edmonds 1929) is neat.
ll to± mn rcn, to± d <oÉd> ullabn, to± d mro toÓ
prgmato lgei: after o¬ mn . . . o¬ d in the preceding clause, this car-
ries antithesis to excess; cf. epil. VIII. Either rcn (B) or tn rcn (A) could
be right: the art. interpolated (IV.10n.) or accidentally omitted (II.2n.). Those
who hear ‘not even a syllable’ are those who p©ain prªn koÓai aÉtoÓ.
A better rhetorician might have placed this clause not in second place but
third. Without the negative ullabn is inept: ‘epitome’ (Jebb), ‘summing-
up’ (Edmonds), ‘Zusammenfassung’ (Steinmetz) are not attested meanings.
None of the proposed substitutes are plausible: unajn (with tlo for mro)
Naber, ullogn Wachsmuth ap. Meister (see Stein 4 n. 7), teleutn Diels,
meolabn Meiser. lgei (-ein AB) is reported from Laur. 60.18 (7 Wilson) by
Torraca (1974) 89, Stefanis (1994a) 118.
oÉk llw qewre±qai xiän tn p»noian aËtoÓ £ Âtan §i panguri:
surprising in sentiment (he deliberately advertises his p»noia), banal in
expression. With Âtan §i panguri cf. V.7, XXII.6.
8 ¬kan¼ d ka©: §9n.

¬kan» of a person XXIX.4 nqrÛpwi ¬kanwtrwi, but not elsewhere in
this work with infin. (for which, LSJ i). Elsewhere the infinitives depend on o³o
or dein» (I reject pr»qumo with infin. at XII.10). ¬kan¼ d should perhaps
be deleted, since the infinitives can be constructed with dein» in §5, once §7
has been removed; the motive for the interpolation would be the same as for
mlei dunat¼ ka© in §3.
d©ka t mn jeÅgein, t d diÛkein, t d x»mnuqai, ta± d pare±-
nai: the accumulation of infinitives indicates how constantly and in what varied
capacities he is involved with the law. Just as the first two offer a natural con-
trast (he is sometimes a defendant, sometimes a plaintiff), so also the last two
seem to balance each other (sometimes he finds an excuse for not appear-
ing in court, but when he does appear he is overburdened with preparatory
documentation). <kaª> t mn x»mnuqai (Casaubon) expresses this bal-
ance more clearly, but is unnecessary. Ussher, who finds much of the sen-
tence ‘mere padding’, deletes t d diÛkein (so that t d x»mnuqai may
be contrasted with t mn jeÅgein) and cwn . . . cer©n (which contains
two of T.’s most engaging images). The sentence as a whole continues the
theme of §6. There we learned that he is frequently convicted of criminal
offences. Now we learn that he is equally at home in court as a plaintiff. A
258
convicted criminal, he does not scruple, in the little time that he is out of prison,
to prosecute others, and he is punctilious in his preparation to an obsessive
degree.
d©ka . . . x»mnuqai is ‘swear off (attending) cases’, perhaps by pleading
ill-health or some other excuse, an extension of such expressions as XXIV.5
x»mnuqai t rc, oÉ jkwn colzein (‘take an oath to avoid office,
pleading lack of time’), Aeschin. 2.94 prebe©an xomomeno (cf. D. 19.122–9,
171 –2, Arist. Pol. 1297 a 20, Ath. 49.2). The nature of this oath is defined by Poll.
8.55 xwmo©a . . . Âtan ti £ prebeut a¬reqeª £ p ì llhn tin dhmo©an
Ëphre©an rrwte±n £ dunate±n jkwn xomnÅhtai aÉt¼ £ di ì trou.
See LSJ x»mnumi ii.2, xwmo©a ii, J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsver-
fahren (Leipzig 1905–15) 407, R. J. Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of
Justice from Homer to Aristotle 2 (Chicago 1938) 163, J. Plescia, The Oath and Perjury
in Ancient Greece (Tallahassee 1970) 31 –2. If we may believe Suda E 1841, the
same oath was used in a legal context (such as we have here) as a plea that a
case should not be admitted: xwmo©a, Âtan ti jkhi £ Ëpr autoÓ £ Ëpr
trou gkaloÅmeno m de±n e«geqai d©khn· e²ta kaª tn a«t©an di ì ¥n oÉk
e«agÛgimo ¡ d©kh (Bonner and Smith 164). The verb is often used in a differ-
ent legal context, of witnesses who decline to give evidence, in the sense ‘take
an oath disclaiming knowledge’ (Poll. continues xÛmnunto d kaª o¬ klhqnte
mrture, e« jkoien mhdn p©taqai toÅtwn j ì kaloÓnto). See Wyse
on Is. 9.18, E. Leisi, Der Zeuge im attischen Recht (Frauenfeld 1908) 67–70, Lipsius
878–9, Plescia 56, Harrison 2.143–5, MacDowell, Law 243 (and on D. 19.176),
Todd in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, S. Todd (edd.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law,
Politics and Society (Cambridge 1990) 24–5, C. Carey, CQ 35 (1995) 114–19. This
sense has been alleged here (Jebb, Edmonds, Bonner and Smith 164, Lane Fox
144–5). But in this sense the verb is normally absolute and is often contrasted
explicitly with marture±n (e.g. D. 19.176 £ marture±n £ x»mnuqai), and a
direct object would not be d©ka but the knowledge or testimony disclaimed
(Aeschin. 1.47 x»mnuqai t lhqe©a, Þ ktl., the reverse of 46 tlhq¦
marture±n, [Arist.] Ath. 55.5 x»mnuntai t martur©a). He is not a witness:
the cases which he swears off attending are cases in which he is a defendant.
I see no justification for the claim that x»mnuqai is here indistinguishable
from Ëp»mnuqai (actually conjectured by Meier 1850/1), ‘take an oath for a
postponement’ (Lipsius 902 n. 3, followed by Stein and Rusten). For this oath,
Harrison 2.155, MacDowell 208, Plescia 50–2, Whitehead on Hyp. Eux. 7.
And ‘clear himself on oath’ (Ussher) is compatible with neither the language
nor the law.
pare±nai is ‘attend’, but not ‘as witness’ (Jebb). For this sense to be clear
we should need an explicit reference to witnessing (as XII.5 marturwn
pare±nai), or a personal dative instead of d©kai (V.3 n.). In any case, a witness
would not bring an c±no.
259
COMMENTARY
cwn c±non n täi prokolp©wi: on the comedy of this scene see the Intro-
duction, p. 23. The c±no is a ‘jar in which were sealed various documents
relating to impending court cases’ (LSJ Rev. Suppl.): Ar. fr. 274, Eup. 453,
D. 39.17, 45.8, 17, 57–8, 47.16, 48.48, 49.65, 54.27, [Arist.] Ath. 53.2–3, Men.
Epit. fr. 4 Sandbach, Philem. 46. A litigant might appeal against the judge-
ment of a public arbitrator and choose to have a trial by jury. Plaintiff and
defendant placed all evidence produced at the arbitration in separate jars, and
these were sealed up until the day of the trial. The procedure is described in
[Arist.] Ath. 53.2–3. See Rhodes ad loc. (with Addenda p. 780), MacDowell, Law
209, A. L. Boegehold, The Athenian Agora, xxviii: The Lawcourts at Athens (Prince-
ton 1995) 79–81. The lexicographers imply that the use of the jar was not
restricted to cases of public arbitration: Harp. p. 143 Dindorf (E 177 Keaney)
(= Suda E 4012, Phot. E 2502 Theodoridis) ggo ti e« Á t grammate±a
t pr¼ t d©ka t©qento, Phot. E 2503 kad©ko t© ti calkoÓ e« Án
a¯ te martur©ai kaª a¬ proklei ggrajoi nebllonto Ëp¼ tän dika-
zomnwn kaª katehma©nonto ¯na mhdeª kakourghi perª t mball»mena.
An inscription on the lid of a clay c±no possibly attests its use in an nkrii,
‘preliminary examination’ (Boegehold, Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 1 –6, id. Agora
xxviii 79; Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law 128–9 is sceptical). The present text
is proof enough of wider use. This is not a process of public arbitration, such
as is described in [Arist.] Ath. 53.2–3 (mentioned above). For there the jars are
brought in by ‘the four judges who acted for the defendant’s tribe’. Here the
jar is brought in by the litigant himself. Boegehold, Agora xxviii 79–80, suggests
that the jar may have been used as a depositary for legal documents which
might be needed later, and that here ‘the point may be that he regularly let
himself act as a person with whom others would deposit sealed documents,
especially wills, and that he took on the sort of custodial responsibility that
led almost inevitably to days in court’. This does not explain why he is also
carrying strings of documents in his hands. More likely the documents in the
jar and in his hands relate to a case in which he is personally involved.
The prok»lpion is a front pocket, a bag-like fold made by drawing up the
chiton through the belt (Gow on Theoc. 16.16, Gomme and Sandbach on Men.
Epit. 382), used by the ìAneleÅqero to carry home his vegetables (XXII.7).
The c±no was a bulky object to put in such a pocket. Erot. E 79 describes
it as cÅtra e²do megalot»mou kaª meglh, ‘a type of large chytra with a
large mouth’. The lid mentioned above was c. 19 centimetres in diameter.
kaª ¾rmaqoÆ grammateid©wn n ta± cer©n: ‘strings (chains) of little docu-
ments’, perhaps figurative, implying an almost interminably repetitive series (as
Ar. Ra. 914–15 ¾ d cor» g ì ¢reiden ¾rmaqoÆ n | melän jex¦ tttara
xunecä n, X. Cyr. 6.3.2 polloÆ ¾rmaqoÆ poioÅmeno tän maxän kaª
tän keuoj»rwn; cf. Ar. fr. 226 yhjimtwn . . . qwmoÆ (‘heaps’) jronte),
rather than literal, implying that the documents are tied together. If they are
260
tied together, how they are tied is unclear. They are not tied together in a bun-
dle, like the lawyers’ briefs in Juv. 7.107 magno comites in fasce libelli (illustrated by
T. Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907) 256), since the noun for bundles is
not ¾rmaqo© but dmai (D.H. Isoc. 18 dma pnu poll dikanikän l»gwn
ì Iokrate©wn perijreqa© jhin Ëp¼ tän bibliopwlän ìAritotlh (fr. 140
Rose), LSJ dmh 1, Pritchett 309–10). And they are not writing-tablets with
multiple leaves (E. IT 727 dltou . . . polÅquroi diaptuca©, Men. fr. 238
grammate©dion . . . d©quron, Poll. 10.57 grammate©dion d©quron £ tr©ptu-
con £ kaª plei»nwn ptucän), since leaves do not form a string or chain but
are folded together. For discussion and illustration see V. Gardthausen, Das
Buchwesen (Leipzig 2 1911) 126–30, E. M. Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and
Latin Palaeography (Oxford 1912) 14–17, W. Schubart, Das Buch bei den Griechen
und Römern (Heidelberg 3 1962) 29–30, D. Diringer, The Book before Printing (New
York 1982) 29–33. An example of tablets linked together by their edges in a
chain (Gardthausen 129), adduced in explanation of our text by Birt (Kritik und
Hermeneutik 261 –2), is a late Roman product. For the general picture, Mart.
5.51.1 hic qui libellis praegrauem gerit laeuam (a lawyer with a handful of docu-
ments). The ‘little documents’ will not be notes for a speech (M. R. Christ, The
Litigious Athenian (Baltimore and London 1998) 38, 271 n. 38) but documents
relevant to the case. On the proliferation of written evidence and legal docu-
ments in the fourth century, W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge Mass. and
London 1989) 69–72, R. Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Records in Classical
Athens (Cambridge 1989) 42–5, Lane Fox 144–5.
The diminutive grammate©dion has a belittling tone in D. 56.1 n gram-
mateid©wi duo±n calko±n wnhmnwi kaª bublid©wi mikräi pnu (hendiadys,
which shows that the word does not refer excusively to a tablet, as LSJ imply),
perhaps also Isoc. 17.34, D. 54.37 (less obviously Antipho 5.53–6), and so per-
haps here. The correct spelling is grammateid©wn (Herwerden before Blaydes
and Diels), dimin. of grammate±on, not -id©wn (AB), an unexpected dimin.
of late and rare dimin. grammtion. The doctrine of Hdn. 2.488 Lentz pre-
scribes that e« mn p¼ toÓ grammtion, toÓ hma©nonto t¼ mikr¼n grmma,
di toÓ I grjetai, Þ ½yrion ½yar©dion, lacnion lacan©dion· e« d p¼
toÓ grammate±on ggone, toÓ hma©nonto tn mikrn dlton, di t¦ EI
dijq»ggou, ãper gge±on gge©dion, graje±on graje©dion. This requires
qualification: (i) lacan©dion is not dimin. of lacnion but is an alternative
dimin. of lcanon; (ii) ½yar©dion is an acceptable dimin. of ½yrion, because
the latter has come to be no longer felt as dimin. (W. Petersen, Greek Diminutives
in -ION (Weimar 1910) 206). We may therefore register surprise over gram-
mat©dion as dimin. of grammtion. G. Dore, RF 92 (1964) 309–10, to whom
Stein appeals in support of -id©wn, misses the point. For the distinction between
grammate±on and grammtion, W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi Proverbia 5 (Göttingen
1999) 314–15. For the form grammate©dion in comedy, Gomme and Sandbach
261
COMMENTARY
on Men. Sic. 141, Kassel and Austin on Men. fr. 238. An analogous form is
Men. Sam. 233 tamieid©ou (Croenert: tamei·ou P), from tamie±on.
9 He makes short-term loans at exorbitant interest to small-tradesmen. Millett,

Lending and Borrowing 179–88, has a valuable discussion of this section, and shows
that the picture of his money-lending activities is realistic and not overdrawn.
Lane Fox 130 does not persuade me to the contrary. See also G. Billeter,
Geschichte des Zinsfusses im griechisch-römischen Altertum bis auf Justinian (Leipzig
1898) 44–5.
<kaª> . . . d: the added ka© (Meier 1850/1) restores normality (I.2n.).
d on its own (without preceding ka© or mn) is used in these circumstances:
(i) in clauses where the infin. depends on o³o or dein», (a) to introduce an
antithesis, as if mn had preceded (IX.7, XII.10, XVI.4, 12, XXIV.8, XXVI.2
tän d llwn, XXX.16, 17; cf. Müller (1874) 23–4), (b) to introduce a second
clause which supplies as much an addition as an antithesis to the first (VII.7
paggllein, prodihgaqai d ka©, VIII.2 rwt¦ai . . . pr¼ toÓ d e«pe±n
(text not fully secure), IX.5 qewre±n, gein d ka©);50 (ii) in clauses other than
these it is used as a connective, (a) introducing formulaic phrases (mlei d
ka© II.9 (spurious), V.9, XXI.11, XXIV.12, XXVII.5, XXVIII.4, XXX.13,
18, mlei d dein» XIX.3, XXVI.3, dein¼ d ka© VI.5, IX.8, X.10, XII.8,
XIV.8, XV.11, XXIX.6, ¬kan¼ d ka© §8 s.u.l.), (b) introducing quoted speech
(I.6, VIII.7, 10, XXVIII.4), (c) linking clauses in quoted speech (II.2, XXVI.2,
XXVIII.2, 4) or reported speech (VIII.8 e²nai d . . . ka© (n. 50 above), possibly
XX.8).
So, in clauses where (as here) the infinitive depends on o³o or dein», the reg-
ular connective (both between separate sentences and between clauses within
the same sentence) is kaª . . . d (68 instances: I.2n.); but d sometimes introduces
a second element or antithesis within the same sentence (11 instances: i(a) and
i(b) above). There are three passages (beside this), in which d (and not kaª . . .
d) is attested as a connective between separate sentences, and I judge that it
is reasonable to add ka© in these too: VIII.8 <kaª> . . . lgei<n> d, XVI.15
<kaª> main»menon d (Blaydes: te V), XXX.17 <kaª> unapodhmän d. I
judge spurious two passages (VIII.6, 10) where d appears with an anomalous
indicative.
oÉk podokimzein: the normal negative with infinitives dependent on o³o
or dein» is m (about 30 instances). But there are a few instances of oÉ. In five
the infin. has another infin. dependent on it, and oÉ + infin. may be taken as a
single unit (KG 2.182 (3)), and in three of these n is present too: X.8 kaª oÉk n
ai . . . ukotrag¦ai, XV.10 kaª oÎte iai . . . n qel¦ai, XVI.9 kaª oÎte
50 In VII.7, IX.5, and VIII.8 (listed under category ii(c)), d ka© seems to have much the
same function as kaª . . . d, which it would be possible (but rash) to restore.
262
pib¦nai . . . qel¦ai, XXIV.6 kaª proelqe±n pr»tero oÉdenª <>qel¦ai,

11 kaª oÎte . . . ai n e«elqe±n. In two others there is no such dependent
infin., but n is present in one: XV.6 kaª oÉk cein, 9 kaª . . . oÉk n Ëpome±nai.
Here oÉk podokimzein (like oÉk ai, oÉk qel¦ai) forms a single unit,
with a second infin. dependent on it. Perhaps we should write oÉk <n>
podokimzein, and XV.6 oÉk <n> cein, XVI.9 <n> qel¦ai, XXIV.6
<n >qel¦ai. For accidental omission of n, XVI.3n. podokimzein is used
with direct object at §5, IV.10; not elsewhere with bare infin. in classical Greek,
but with articular infin. X. Cyr. 8.1.47, Isoc. 5.75, Men. Dysc. 186–7.
oÉd ì ma pollän gora©wn trathge±n kaª eÉqÆ toÅtoi dane©zein: oÉd
is ‘not . . . either’ (Denniston 194–7), and oÉk podokimzein . . . oÉd picks
up §5 mhdem©an a«crn rga©an podokimai. It cannot mean ‘not even’,
because ‘it is absurd to say that he does not disdain to be captain even of many
gora±oi at once, as if a more modest person would have been trathg» of
one at a time’ (Jebb). ma with pollän aptly brings out the multiplicity and
promiscuousness of his clientele. The words are regularly combined: e.g. Th.
5.17.2 xun»dwn ma poll dikaiÛei proenegk»twn, X. Mem. 3.14.5 ¾ ma
poll q©wn, Arist. EN 1158a 11 rn pollän ma, Men. Epit. 166. Others
(e.g. Meister and Stein) take ma with ka© (for this structure, KG 2.231, LSJ
ma a.3, Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations 143–4), which would indicate the
simultaneity of his patronage and his offer to lend money. But ma does not
harmonise well with kaª eÉqÅ (for which cf. XXX.4). Rather, he acts as if he is
in charge of the gora±oi (this, not ‘takes charge of’, is the force of trathge±n)
and at once, as soon as asked, lends them money. oÉd might, indeed, convey
a stronger point if it could be taken with a following noun (as XXVIII.5 m
pocqai mhd toÆ o«ke©ou aÉtoÓ loidor¦ai) denoting the low status of
the market-traders (‘he does not scruple to manage even . . .’). Any such noun
must be general enough to include butchers and fishmongers, whose shops he
visits to collect his interest: oÉd kaplwn (Jebb) would serve, but the change is
implausible; oÉd ì llantopwlän (Diels), a plausible change, is too exclusive.
Not oÉd pamp»llwn (Ast), oÉd ra (Blaydes). ll ì oÉd (Edmonds 1929) is
inappropriate (Denniston 23–4).
The gora±oi are ‘market-traders’: X. Cyr. 1.2.3, Vect. 3.13, [Arist.]
Oec. 1347 a 34, 1350a 26; cf. §2 gora±o. With gora©wn trathge±n cf.
XXIX.6 protat¦ai jaÅlwn. Comic cooks are apt to picture themselves as
trathgo© (Dionys.Com. 2.11 –12, Posidipp. 29, Sosip. 1.44–56); likewise Plau-
tine slaves (E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) 231 –40 = Elementi
Plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960) 223–31). For dane©zein, I.5n.
kaª t¦ dracm¦ t»kon tr©a ¡miwblia t¦ ¡mra prtteqai: there
being six obols to the drachma, the interest is 25% daily, an exorbitant rate.
For lending by the day see Millett, Lending and Borrowing 183; on the etymology
and connotations of t»ko, ibid. 45–6. For the spelling -blia (Diels, Index s.u.:
263
COMMENTARY
-b»lia AB), M. N. Tod, NC 7 (1947) 22–3, Threatte 1.215–16. For t¦ ¡mra,
XXVIII.4 (conj.), Th. 3.17.4, al., Ar. Ach. 66, Lys. 32.20, 28, Pl. Lg. 766d, X.
Vect. 3.9, al., D. 20.115, 42.7, Aeschin. 1.97, Hyp. Lyc. 2, [Arist.] Ath. 29.5, al.,
Men. Epit. 137, 140, fr. 258; see on X.13 toÓ niautoÓ, KG 1.387, Schwyzer
2.113. For the confusion of r and l (pltteqai AB), XXI.11, Diggle, Euripidea
469.
kaª jodeÅein t mageire±a, t «cquopÛlia, t taricopÛlia: jodeÅein
is ‘do the rounds of, inspect’, regular in military contexts (Ar. Au. 1160, X. HG
2.4.24, 5.3.22, Cyr. 8.6.16), here picking up the figurative use of trathge±n.
mageire±a is taken as ‘butchers’ or cooks’ quarter of Athens’ by LSJ 3, citing Antiph.
201. More precisely, according to Poll. 9.48, Antiph. so described the place
where cooks might be hired (eh d ì n kaª mageire±a tän p»lew merän,
oÉc ïper t loip tän Ëp¼ ta± tcnai rgathr©wn, ll ì ¾ t»po
Âqen miqoÓntai toÆ mage©rou · Þ ìAntijnh (201) “k tän mageire©wn
bad©zwn . . .”). This is the forum coquinum of Pl. Ps. 790. But, alongside fish-
shops, mageire±a will be butchers’ shops or stalls (LSJ 1, E. M. Rankin, The Rôle
of the MAGEIROI in the Life of the Ancient Greeks (Chicago 1907) 43–5, Konstanta-
kos 253–4; cf. Wycherley, Agora iii 205). For mgeiro equivalent to kreopÛlh
(IX.4), ‘butcher’ rather than ‘cook’ (§5n.), see Rankin 64–6, G. Berthiaume,
Les rôles du mágeiros (Leiden 1982) 62–3, Arnott on Alex. 103.22–5. For fishmon-
gers in the Agora, Wycherley, Agora iii 195–6; their low repute, IV.13n., Arnott
on Alex. 16. As to spelling, not «cquopwle±a and taricopwle±a (c). Metre
guarantees rtopÛlion at Ar. Ra. 112, fr. 1 ; cf. XI.9 muropÛlion, attested by
the papyrus (ii bc) at Hyp. Ath. 6, 9, 12, 19. For the asyndetic tricolon, V.10n.
kaª toÆ t»kou p¼ toÓ mpolmato e« tn gnqon klgein: it was
the practice, for lack of suitable pockets, to carry small coins in the mouth (Ar.
V. 609, 791, Au. 503, Ec. 818, fr. 3, 48, Alex. 133.7).51 e« tn gnqon klgein
(the verb, §4) is the ‘pregnant’ construction, ‘collect <and put> into the cheek’
(KG 1.543–4). The verb which might be expected here is gkptein (‘take a
mouthful of’, LSJ Rev. Suppl., used in this connection by Ar. V. 791, Alex. 133.7
gkya t¼ krmì e« tn gnqon; cf. E. Cycl. 629 gkyante a«qra gnqoi).
We might consider gkptein for klgein (rather than <gkptwn> klgein
Navarre 1918); but the less obvious expression has a certain directness (he ‘takes
no chances, grabbing his interest direct from the traders’ tills and stuffing it
into his mouth’, in Millett’s vigorous paraphrase). It is pedantic to object that
money, not interest, is put into the mouth (calkoÓ for t»kou Casaubon). With
the expression toÆ t»kou p¼ toÓ mpolmato cf. XXX.7 t¼ . . . k t¦
p»lew j»dion. There is no need for toÆ t»kou <toÆ> p¼ (Edmonds
and Austen before Navarre 1918); KG 1.615–16. It is unclear whether toÓ
51 A practice shared by the Victorian poor (Dickens, Little Dorrit, ch. 16, antepenultimate
paragraph).
264
mpolmato is his business venture, money-lending (e.g. Meister, Rusten), or

theirs (e.g. Jebb, Edmonds); perhaps it may be allowed to comprehend both.
[10] Epilogue
o¬ <toioÓtoi>, t¼ t»ma eÎluton conte: a plural subject is introduced
(epil. III n.). The supplement restores a word characteristic of epilogues (epil.
I n.) and used also in the spurious VIII.5 (cf. genuine XXVIII.2, XXIX.5);
omission was easy in the sequence o¬ toioÓtoi t». Earlier proposals: o¬ om. d,
oÌtw or o¬ oÌtw (for o¬ t») Schwartz. Cf. Critias 6.8–9 glÛa . . . lÅouin
| e« a«croÆ mÅqou, LSJ lÅw i.1.b.
pr¼ loidor©an kaª jqegg»menoi meglhi t¦i jwn¦i: see on §7 kaª
prokaloÅntwn ktl.
t rgatria: the word embraces both ‘workshop’ (Wyse on Is. 3.22,
Finley, Studies in Land and Credit 65–71) and ‘shop’ (here, epil. VIII, Ar. Eq.
744, Isoc. 7.15, 18.9, D. 25.52, Hyp. Ath. 6, 10, Antiph. 251), a traditional
place of idleness and talk (XI.9n.); cf. Wycherley, ‘Market of Athens’ 4
(= Stones of Athens 92), id. Agora iii no. 615, Thompson and Wycherley, Agora xiv
170.
265
VII
T H E TA L K E R
Introductory note
Lale±n often connotes ‘what we mean by pronouncing the word “talk” in a
contemptuous or impatient way: talking too much, or talking when action
would be more appropriate . . . , or talking out of turn when prompt and silent
compliance is needed’ (K. J. Dover, Aristophanes, Frogs (Oxford 1993) 22). This
is a fault for which Aristophanes blamed the sophists or Euripides (Nu. 931,
1053, 1394, Ra. 91, 917, 954, 1069, 1492), and some blamed Pericles (Pl. Grg.
515e). But often the verb has a neutral sense, ‘talk’, ‘engage in conversation’
(e.g. Men. Epit. 886, Pk. 470); and it is in this neutral sense that Theophrastus
uses it outside this sketch (I.2, II.10, IV.2, XX.2, XXIV.8, prolale±n XI.4,
XIX.5). See further Arnott on Alex. 200.4, S. Vogt, Aristoteles, Physiognomica
(Darmstadt 1999) 320–2.
The Llo receives a more subtle and lively portrait than the ìAdolch
(III), and his talk has a different stamp. The ìAdolch inflicts his company on
a single silent victim and detains him where they sit. The Llo finds a varied
audience: a passer-by (§2), a crowd (§4), occupants of school and palaestra (§5),
fellow jurors, theatre-goers, diners (§8); he follows his victims home (§5). The
ìAdolch delivers disconnected commonplaces and does not know that he
is a bore. The Llo is a know-all, and proud of it. He is not always first
to speak: but, if others start, he will interrupt, discourteous, patronising and
self-important (§3), or, if they want the latest news from the Assembly, he will
give it, then add what they do not want, reports of old debates from home and
abroad, his own famous speeches, and his political opinions (§7). He is aware
of his failing, but with no shame, for he jokes about it (§9) and does not mind
if others do so (§10).
Theophrastus is alleged to have put down a llo with a deft turn of wit:
fr. 452 Fortenbaugh (Gnomol. Vat. 331 Sternbach) ¾ aÉt¼ (sc. Theophrastus)
llwi peripeÜn e²pen “aÎri»n e poÓ tai m «de±n;” (Fortenbaugh, Quellen
176–8).
[1 ] Definition
The definition is almost identical with [Pl.] Def. 416a lali kra©a l»gou
logo (Ingenkamp 103). It says nothing which would distinguish lali from
dolec©a. Cf. Stein 129.
e ti aÉtn ¾r©zeqai boÅloito: cf. def. XI oÉ calep¼n d ti . . .
dior©aqai; more commonly Þ Ârwi labe±n and the like (def. I n.).
266
V I I : T H E TA L K E R
e²nai n d»xeien: def. I n.

kra©a toÓ l»gou: cf. [A.] PV 884 glÛh . . . krat, Ar. Ra. 838
krat . . . t»ma, Plu. Lyc. 19.3 ¡ pr¼ t¼ lale±n kra©a ken¼n t¼n l»gon
poie± kaª n»hton. The article is unwelcome; perhaps ti (def. I n.).
2 toioÓt» ti: not t© ti (A); I.2n.

täi ntugcnonti e«pe±n, n ¾tioÓn pr¼ aÉt¼n jqgxhtai, Âti oÉqn
lgei kaª Âti aÉt¼ pnta o²de ka©, n koÅhi aËtoÓ, maqetai: for
aÉt¼n . . . aËtoÓ (Edmonds 1908: aÉ- AB), I.2n. ad fin. With oÉqn lgei
cf. Pl. Lg. 862a kope±qe d ete ti lgw . . . ete kaª mhdn t¼ parpan
(LSJ lgw iii.6); for oÉqn (oÉdn A), II.2n. With aÉt¼ pnta o²de cf. Semon.
7.13 ¥ pnt ì koÓai, pnta d ì e«dnai qlei, Theoc. 15.64 pnta guna±ke
anti. Other talkative know-alls: Pl. Trin. 199–211, Mart. 9.35, Juv. 6.402–12.
3 kaª metaxÆ d pokrinomnwi pibale±n epa: cf. VIII.3 oÉk a

pokr©naqai. If pibale±n is right, it probably has the same sense here which
it has in VIII.2 and in two passages classified under separate headings by LSJ:
S Pi. P. 4.28 pibllwn jh© (LSJ i.4, transitive ‘add, contribute’, hence of
speech ‘throw in, mention’) and Plb. 1.80.1 j ì Án . . . pibalÜn . . . jh
(intrans. ‘follow, come next’ LSJ ii.5, ‘speaking next in succession’ Walbank ad
loc.). LSJ associates our passage with this last and arbitrarily translates ‘inter-
rupt’. Stein (on VIII.2) adds two further passages: Plb. 22.3.8 genomnh . . .
mnmh toÓ bailw pibalÜn (‘interjecting’ Walbank) ¾ prebeut pol-
loÅ tina diet©qeto l»gou gkwmizwn t¼n Ptolema±on, D.S. 13.28.4–5
polloª . . . tän kaqhmnwn qorÅbhan. ¾ d ì pibalÜn “¾ri” jh© “toÆ
täi qorÅbwi tn umjorn mjan©zonta;” What appears to be common to
all five passages is the notion of throwing in an additional (verbal) contribution.
That contribution may be, in effect, an interruption; but ‘interrupt’ need not
be the primary implication of the verb. That would be more clearly expressed
by Ëpo- (d); LSJ Ëpobllw iii, MacDowell on D. 21.204. Not, however, Ëpo-
labe±n (Koujeas), which is ‘take over’ from another speaker (LSJ i.3.a), and
this is the primary implication in the two passages of X. which LSJ i.3.b cite
for the sense ‘interrupt’.
-bllein (AB) must be changed to -bale±n (either pibale±n a (Torraca
(1974) 90), or Ëpobale±n Edmonds 1929), not because of preceding e«pe±n
and following por©aqai, but because epa must be coincident in time with
the infin. and cannot be coincident with a present. Present infin. -bllein
would require present part., as VIII.9 cetlizein lgwn. For aorist part.
of a verb of speaking coincident with aor. infin., XXVI.5 e«pe±n . . . ja
(s.u.l.), XXX.9 pait¦ai . . . ja (similarly, with aor. indic., §7 epa
hÉdok©mhen), Pl. Men. 77a podoÓnai . . . e«pÛn, Smp. 214c e«pÜn . . . pitxai,
Lg. 712c pokr©naqai . . . e«pÛn, D. 20.76, 29.25, 60.23, Arist. EN 1179a 14
267
COMMENTARY
(KG 1.197–200, Schwyzer 2.300–1, Barrett on E. Hi. 289–92). The mss. do, in
fact, offer two instances of aorist part. coincident with present infin. (§7 kata-
lip»nta palltteqai, VIII.2 pibalÜn rwtn), and a third has been
introduced by conjecture at XXVIII.4 unepilambneqai epa (Cobet: e²pen
V? , epou Vc ). All three can be set right very simply. The form epa (V.2n.)
is reported from Ambros. E 119 sup. (21 Wilson) by Stefanis (1994a) 107.
“Æ m pilqhi Á mllei lgein”: ‘Do not forget what you are leading up
to’, perhaps implying ‘do not allow yourself to be distracted from your train
of thought by my interruption, but, when I have finished, resume where you
left off’. For emphatic Å, I.6, VIII.2, 7, XVII.3, XVIII.9, XXVIII.3 (Ëme±
with imperative XXI.11). Æ m with imperative or equivalent is elsewhere
very common: e.g. H. Il. 9.600, Thgn. 1240, A. Th. 698, Eum. 227, [A.] PV
807, S. El. 1309, Ph. 922, OC 282, E. IT 1474, Or. 1027, IA 1135, fr. 1064.5, Pl.
Cra. 420e, X. Cyr. 7.1.17, D. 22.29. Many prefer the articulation “E²pa Å;
m ktl.” (AB), from which coherent sense (‘You astonish me: take care that
you do not involve yourself in self-contradiction’ Jebb) can be extracted only
with difficulty. The same is true of the punctuation “E²pa Å (m pilqhi)
Á mllei lgein” (Ussher). In “e²pa Å;” <kaª> “m ktl.” (Foss 1858 before
Pasquali) the disconnected question has little point. Cf. Radermacher 203–4,
Stein 129–30.
“EÔ ge Âti me Ëpmnha”: cf. Luc. JTr. 42 eÔ ge, å Tim»klei, Âti (u.l.
Âti me) Ëpmnha tän ktl., Nau. 3 eÔ ge . . . Âti ¡m namimnkei.52 The
expression combines (i) eÔ ge Âti (Ar. Nu. 866, Pl. La. 181 a, 200a, Luc. Lex. 3,
Deor.Conc. 4, Tox. 35, Herm. 77, DMort. 6.6, 24.2, DMar. 5.1) and (ii) eÔ ge
Ëpmnha (Luc. Icar. 13, Philops. 38, Nec. 19, Nau. 35 (conj.), DDeor. 11.4, D.C.
exc. Salmas. (3.764 Boissevain), Heliod. 7.10.5). Alternatives to eÔ ge in (ii) are
kalä (Pl. Lg. 832a, Luc. DMeretr. 13.2), kalä ge (Pl. Phdr. 266d), e« kal»n
(Pl. Hp.Ma. 286c), ½rqä (Pl. Tht. 187e, 208c, Plu. 932d).
“î O parlipon”: Auberius proposed the neat transposition EÔ ge Âti me
Ëpmnha [kaª] Á parlipon; cf. Luc. Icar. 13 eÔ ge Ëpmnha · Á gr mlita
cr¦n e«pe±n, toÓto oÉk o²d ì Âpw parlipon.
“TacÅ ge un¦ka t¼ prgma”: cf. Ariston fr. 14, VIII (p. 40 Wehrli) Þ
[t]acÆ un¦ka.
“Plai e paretroun, e« pª t¼ aÉt¼ moª katenecqhi”: see on II.2 pª
t¼ Ànoma aÉtoÓ katenecq¦nai.
kaª tra tarac toiaÅta por©aqai: tarac is an admirable con-
jecture for rc (AB). The interruptions do not create beginnings (‘cues’ Jebb,
‘openings’ Edmonds, Rusten); they sow confusion, disturb the flow of speech,
52 These similarities are not evidence that Lucian was familiar with T. (Introduction,
p. 26). Both authors are using a colloquial form of expression, which was widespread,
as the following passages show.
268
put the speaker off his stride. Plural taraca© is very common. There is no like-
lihood in jorm (ds e, vainly advocated by Terzaghi) or rida (Navarre 1918).
ãte mhd napneÓai t¼n ntugcnonta: he does not even recover (draw
breath, get a breathing space) from the last verbal assault before another begins.
So H. Il. 11.799–801 a ke . . . p»cwntai polmoio | Träe, napneÅwi
d ì r·oi u³e ìAcaiän | teir»menoi· ½l©gh d t ì npneui polmoio, X. HG
6.4.24 e« d ì pilaqqai . . . boÅleqe t¼ gegenhmnon pqo, umbouleÅw
napneÅanta kaª napauamnou kaª me©zou gegenhmnou to± htt-
toi oÌtw e« mchn «nai, D. 18.195 t¦nai unelqe±n napneÓai (‘stand,
rally, recover breath’, before the next attack), E. Andr. 1137 oÉ did»nte m-
pno. Commonly, in this sense, respirare (OLD s.u. 2). No need for napneÓai
<ai> (Coray) or mhd ì <n> napneÓai (Herwerden).
4 kaª Âtan ge toÆ kaq ì na poguiÛhi: kaª . . . ge is attested again at §7

and XXVIII.5, and is acceptable in itself (Denniston 157–8), but may be a
mistake (in all three places) for the more regular kaª . . . d (I.2n., VI.9n.). Here
Darvaris proposed [kaª] . . . d (impossibly).
toÆ kaq ì na ‘people individually’ is not a regular use of kaq ì na with the
article, but is linguistically unexceptionable (kaq ì na is in effect adverbial, so
the expression is of the same stamp as o¬ nÓn: cf. Müller (1878) 12, KG 1.269
(c)) and comparable to t kaq ì kata (III.2n.). Normally kaq ì na stands in
apposition to subject or object. I quote examples where it is opposed (as here)
to a part of qr»o: HP 4.2.7 (karp»n) oÉc qr»on . . . ll kecwrimnon
kaq ì na, Pl. Alc.1 114d ¾ mn qr»ou pe©qei t aÉt, ¾ d kaq ì na, X. An.
4.7.8 p¦lqon . . . nqrwpoi Þ bdomkonta, oÉc qr»oi ll kaq ì na,
Hyp. Eux. 33 toÆ d ukojantoumnou . . . £ kaq ì na £ qrou, Men.
Asp. 75–8 kaq ì na mn | kein (Kassel: klaiein B) kÛluen . . . unagagÜn |
pnta d ì qr»ou kaue; similarly Hdt. 7.104.4 Lakedaim»nioi kat mn na
mac»menoi . . . le d ktl. See LSJ kat b.ii.3, KG 1.480, Schwyzer 2.477.
poguiÛhi ‘enfeeble, unnerve’ (LSJ) is an admirable conjecture, far supe-
rior in aptness and interest to pogumnÛhi (AB) ‘strip bare’, which is not
elsewhere attested in a metaphorical sense (‘vanquish’ LSJ). That T. is con-
sciously alluding to H. Il. 6.265 m mì poguiÛhi mneo is suggested by
(i) the use of the same part of the verb (-Ûhi/-Ûhi), (ii) an earlier use of
the same passage by Pl. Cra. 415a m l©an, å daim»nie, kribologoÓ, m mì
poguiÛhi mneo. No other conjecture need detain us: pokna©hi c2 de,
potrucÛhi Eberhard 1865, popn©xhi Bersanetti, potumpan©hi Meiser,
pogumnhi Navarre 1918.
dein¼ kaª pª toÆ qr»ou [kaª] unethk»ta poreuq¦nai: that dele-
tion of ka© (Meineke) is preferable to deletion of kaª unethk»ta (Cobet
1874) is shown by Pl. Ly. 203a qr»oi unetäi, X. An. 7.3.47 utnte
qr»oi, Posidon. fr. 69 Edelstein-Kidd qr»ou . . . nqrÛpou unetäta.
269
COMMENTARY
Other instances of interpolated ka©: VIII.11 (A), XIV.5, 10, XXVI.4, XXX.8.
The language has a military note (observed by Jebb, whose translation I have
adopted in part); cf. §3 napneÓai, §7 mchn.
5 kaª e« t didakale±a d kaª e« t pala©tra e«iÛn: the didakale±on
was a primary school (Ziebarth, ‘Schulen’, RE ii.1 a (1921) 758–9, H.-I. Marrou,
Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité (Paris 6 1965) 83, 221 –2); cf. XXII.6, XXX.14.
A law attributed to Solon (Aeschin. 1.12) forbidding adults access to schools,
on pain of death, had evidently fallen into abeyance. With e« t pala©tra
e«iÛn cf. XXVII.6.
kwlÅein toÆ pa±da promanqnein: for toÆ pa±da, XVI.12n. For pro-
manqnein, Ar. Nu. 966 promaqe±n imì d©daken (Dover ad loc.), E. fr. 912.10
qlou promaqe±n, Pl. Lg. 643c tän maqhmtwn Âa nagka±a promemaqhk-
nai promanqnein. Similarly prodidkein (e.g. Ar. Nu. 476, Dover ad loc.). No
need for prom- (Auberius before Casaubon) or pra m- (Foss 1858).
[toaÓta kaª prolale± to± paidotr©bai kaª didakloi]: prolale±n
(AB) must be replaced by prolale± (prolale± kaª Sheppard, kaª prolale±
Diels), since an infin. constructed with dein» could not be introduced by
toaÓta ka©. This explanatory comment is otiose. The formulation is com-
parable to epil. VIII oÌtw kaª kataponoÓi ta± yeudolog©ai. Attempts
to integrate the clause into the sentence are ineffectual: (with prolale±n)
toÆ qlou kaª Reiske 1749 (Briefe 360), t gumnmata kaª Reiske 1757,
täi aÉto± te . . . kaª Schwartz, t¼ ima kaª Ribbeck 1870, t autän kaª
Ussing; (with prolalän Needham) toaÓta [kaª] Needham, thnikaÓta
Darvaris, toiaÓta kaª Ast, toaÓta kaª <toiaÓta> Foss 1858, toaÓta d
Petersen (before Navarre 1920, but with prolale±), toaÓta . . . kaª Blaydes.
<to±> didakloi (Schneider) is needless; for the single article see on I.5
kaª pr¼ toÆ ktl.
6 kaª toÆ pinai jkonta dein¼ propmyai kaª pokatat¦ai e« t
o«k©a: Edmonds 1910 deleted dein», perhaps rightly. Its reappearance (after
dein» §4) is unnecessary and abnormal (at XV.8, 11 and XXIX.5, 6 dein»
is followed not by kaª . . . dein» but by dein¼ d ka©). Since the preceding
interpolated sentence (with indic.) interrupts the infin. construction, dein»
may have been added to clarify the resumed construction. I have suggested
that dunat» at VI.3 and ¬kan» at VI.8 (both after interpolated indic.) may
owe their origin to the same cause. For propmyai cf. V.2; for pokatat¦ai
e« t o«k©a, Plb. 8.27.6 pokatthan aÉt¼n e« o²kon.
7 kaª puqomnoi <t p¼> t¦ kklh©a paggllein: puqomnoi with-

out art., ‘to people when they have enquired’ (VI.2–3n.). puq»meno (AB) has
much less point: paggllein calls for a dat. specifying the recipients of the
270
report (cf. XIV.7, XXI.11). The Llo, unlike the ìAdolch, sometimes
waits for the prompting of others (Introd. Note). The phrase <t p¼> t¦
kklh©a goes p¼ koinoÓ with puqomnoi and paggllein. The supple-
ment <t p¼> (Dobree before Kayser) is commended by IV.3 to± . . .
miqwto± . . . pnta t p¼ t¦ kklh©a dihge±qai, in preference to
<t> (Bloch before Petersen) or <tk> (also Dobree, before Eberhard 1865
and Fraenkel and Groeneboom). There is no allusion here (as Jebb supposes) to
a period of widespread disfranchisement under Antipater. At the best of times
the Assembly was attended by only a fraction of the citizens (Hansen, Athenian
Democracy 130–2); the rest would have to learn its proceedings at second hand.
prodihgaqai d ka©: we might have expected kaª prodihgaqai d
(VI.9n.).53 The compound verb is rare: Philo Leg. 299 (Cohn-Wendland 6.210),
Luc. Per. 43.
tn p ì ìAritojänt» pote genomnhn toÓ çtoro mchn kaª tn <n>
Lakedaimon©oi pª Lundrou: he narrates ‘the battle which once occurred
in the time of the orator Aristophon and the one among the Lacedaemonians
in the time of Lysander’. These are not literal battles but (in keeping with the
military imagery observed in §4) figurative battles of words (Pl. Ti. 88a mca
n l»goi poioumnh; cf. figurative mceqai VI.4n.). He is preoccupied not
with military history but with public speeches, his own and those of others;
the reference to his own oratorical success (oÌ pote l»gou aÉt¼ ktl.) sug-
gests (even if it does not demand) that a reference to the oratory of others
has preceded. He reports the latest speeches from the Assembly, and then
proceeds, by a loose association of ideas, to mention a dispute, involving the
orator/politician Aristophon, which took place in Athens a generation earlier,
and then an even remoter debate which took place in Sparta a generation
before that. Then he mentions the public speeches for which he once won
credit himself. His first allusion is perhaps to the prosecution by Aristophon in
356/5 of the generals Iphicrates, Menestheus, and Timotheos, for their failure
in the Social War, and his second to the public debate in 400 between Agesilaus
and Leotychidas, claimants to the kingship at Sparta, when the citizen body
decided in favour of Agesilaus, in whose support Lysander had spoken deci-
sively (X. HG 3.3.1 –3). So (cleverly, but unheeded) H. Weil, ‘Deux allusions à
des faits historiques dans les Caractères de Théophraste’, RPh 14 (1890) 106–7.
Three simple changes are called for. First, pote (de) for t»te. Sense forbids
(what would be most natural) that t»te should refer to the time indicated
in the preceding clause. If we refer it to some definite time (‘on that former
occasion’), it is otiose after p ì ìAritojänto. It does not normally refer to
indefinite time (‘sometime in the past’) unless it is coupled with a contrasting
reference to present time (Diggle, Euripidea 491 –2). For pote (this is the only
53 Some descendants of A have <kaª> prodihgaqai d ka© (Torraca (1974) 90).
271
COMMENTARY
instance of t»te in this work), §7 (immediately below), I.5, XII.12, XVI.14.

Second, <n> (Weil) Lakedaimon©oi (as Arist. Rh. 1415 b 32). Third, p© (de)
for Ëp», two prepositions regularly confused (IV.9; Diggle, Studies on the Text
of Euripides 40, N. Hopkinson, Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge 1984)
115 n. 1).
On Aristophon (c.435–c.335) see, for the ancient evidence, J. Miller,
‘Aristophon (3)’, RE ii.1 (1895) 1005–7, J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 1
(Berlin 1901) 144–5; for modern scholarship, D. Whitehead, Hypereides, The
Forensic Speeches (Oxford 2000) 232. According to Hyp. Eux. 28 he became
«cur»tato n t¦i polite©ai. Demosthenes lists him among his most distin-
guished predecessors (18.219 polloª par ì Ëm±n, ndre ìAqhna±oi, geg»nai
çtore ndoxoi kaª megloi pr¼ moÓ, Kall©trato ke±no, ìAritojän,
Kjalo, QraÅboulo, teroi mur©oi). His prosecution of Iphicrates was long
remembered; for Iphicrates replied to the charge with some neat quips, in a
speech which was attributed to Lysias (Lys. frr. 45–9 Thalheim; its authorship
is discussed by D.H. Lys. 12). The evidence for this trial (and those of the two
other generals) is presented by M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the
People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and
Politicians (Odense 1975) 100–2.
The term çtwr connotes, in effect, ‘politician’: Hansen, ‘The Athenian
“Politicians” 403–322’, GRBS 24 (1983) 33–55 (= The Athenian Ecclesia II: A
Collection of Articles 1983–1989 (Copenhagen 1989) 1 –24), id. Athenian Demo-
cracy 143–5, 268–71. The designation ‘X. ¾ çtwr’ is conventional (D. 42.21
Filotrtou toÓ çtoro, Hyp. fr. 97 Jensen, Din. 1.38, Arist. Rh. 1398b 2,
Plb. 28.19.7, D.S. 16.54.2, 16.87.1). Similarly VIII.4 ìAte©ou toÓ aÉlhtoÓ and
LÅkwn ¾ rgolbo. For the word order (participle between ìAritojänto
and toÓ çtoro), XXV.5 traumat©an tin projer»menon tän j©lwn
(XXX.9n.).
Many prefer a different Aristophon, the archon of 330/329 (v. Schoeffer,
‘Aristophon (1)’, RE ii.1 (1895) 1005), and refer the first battle to one which fell in
that year. Casaubon suggested the victory of Alexander at Arbela (Gaugamela).
The battle itself fell in the preceding year; news of it reached Athens during
Aristophon’s archonship (D.S. 17.62.1 ; H. Wankel, Demosthenes, Rede für Ktesiphon
über den Kranz (Heidelberg 1976) 26–8). Needham suggested the victory of
Antipater over the Spartans at Megalopolis. Again, this battle is normally dated
in the preceding year (Wankel 23 n. 46, Lane Fox 158 n. 14). More important,
the reference to Spartans in connection with the next battle implies that they
were not involved in the former battle. And, whether we choose Arbela or
Megalopolis, it will be necessary to delete toÓ çtoro (Fischer; Casaubon
had mistakenly supposed that the archon and the politician were one and the
same). As an alternative, Casaubon proposed to refer mchn to the contest
between Demosthenes and Aeschines over the crown (the çht»rwn gäna of
272
D. 18.226), which fell in the archonship of Aristophon (D.H. Amm. 1.12, Plu.
Dem. 24.2). In this case, toÓ çtoro must be emended (since it was not a
single orator’s fight) to tän çht»rwn (Casaubon) or to±n çht»roin (Diels); not
to± çtori (Holland 1897, for conformity with the following dative, which is
faulty). But ‘the (two) orators’ is not an acceptable designation of Demosthenes
and Aeschines (rightly Wankel 29). In any case, p ì ìAritojänto means ‘in
the time of A.’, not ‘in the archonship of A.’, which is p ì ìAritojänto
rconto (D.S. 17.62.1, D.H. Amm. 1.12, Plu. Dem. 24.2, Arr. An. 3.22.2). So
Aristophon is not the archon. He is the politician – as the transmitted text
tells us.
Once it is accepted that the battle in Aristophon’s time is a verbal battle,
it follows that the battle with which Lysander is associated must be a verbal
battle too. Transition from a figurative to a literal battle (the favoured candidate
is Lysander’s victory at Aigospotamoi in 405) is unthinkable. The dispute
surrounding the election of Agesilaus, and Lysander’s role in that election,
were widely known: Plu. Ages. 3.3–5, Lys. 22.5–6, Nep. Ag. 1.5, J.-F. Bommelaer,
Lysandre de Sparte, Histoire et traditions (Paris 1981) 174, 180–1, P. Cartledge, Agesilaus
and the Crisis of Sparta (London 1987) 110–15, C. D. Hamilton, Agesilaus and the
Failure of Spartan Hegemony (Ithaca and London 1991) 26–9.
The only alternative worth considering is that the text is lacunose (Reiske
1757, Cobet 1874) and that tn ktl. refers to something other than mchn.
Nothing is gained by a change like tn Lakedaimon©wn (de) Ëp¼ Lundrwi
(Ussing), hardly acceptable for ‘the (battle) of the Spartans under Lysander’;
for that I should expect <tän> Lakedaimon©wn (KG 1.615–16). And deletion
of kaª tn . . . Lundrou (Hottinger) is implausible, since there was no motive
for addition (interpolation on a wider scale had already been contemplated
by Reiske 1757). Further implausibilities in G. F. Unger, ‘Die Großthat des
Aristophon’, Philologus 47 (1889) 644–52, and Naber.
kaª oÌ pote l»gou aÉt¼ epa hÉdok©mhen n täi dmwi: For epa
(Needham, not Casaubon), V.2n. For hÉd- (Needham, before Edmonds
and Austen, Navarre 1920), II.2n. n täi dmwi is ‘in the Assembly’, as
XXII.3 (conj.), perhaps XXI.11 (conj.), a very common expression. M. H.
Hansen, GRBS 19 (1978) 130 n. 14 (= The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of
Articles 1976–1983 (Copenhagen 1983) 142 n. 14), cites more than 60 instances
from the orators. Add from the orators Lys. 13.33, 65, D. 19.182, 297 (law in
D. 24.20, 50), from other authors Ar. V. 594, Nu. 432, Lys. 514, Th. 4.118.11,
14, 5.45.2, 8.53.1, 8.68.1, Pl. Alc.1 114c, Euthd. 284b, Grg. 500c, 515d, R. 565b,
X. Mem. 1.1.18, HG 1.7.20, 7.4.4, [X.] Ath. 1.18, [Arist.] Ath. 25.4. See also
XXI.11 n., XXII.3n., Whitehead on Hyp. Eux. 24.
kaª kat tän plhqän ge ma dihgoÅmeno kathgor©an parembale±n: for
plural plhqän, LSJ i.2.b ad fin. In place of ge perhaps d (Darvaris before
Hartung); §4n.
273
COMMENTARY
ãte toÆ koÅonta ¢toi pilabqai £ nutai £ metaxÆ

katale©ponta palltteqai: pilabqai connotes a verbal assault,
‘protest’, ‘object’, implying ‘interrupt’, as VIII.5 (spurious), Pl. Grg. 469c moÓ
d lgonto [[täi l»gwi del. Hirschig]] pilaboÓ, 506b moÓ ge koÅwn
pilambnou, n t© oi dokä m kalä lgein, Smp. 214e n ti m lhq
lgw, metaxÆ pilaboÓ (LSJ iii.8). For the corruption (-laq- AB), I.2n. Not
<tän prÛtwn> pilaq- (Immisch 1897), <pntwn> pilaq- (Fraenkel and
Groeneboom).
The form nutai (P) is attested in Dionys.Com. 2.43 and Asclep. AP
12.135.3 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 896), -xai (AB) in the Septuagint and
later (non-Attic) writers.
Present infin. palltteqai signifies ‘begin to depart’ (see on V.2 p»r-
rwqen proagoreÓai). Aorist part. katalip»nta (AB) would have to be
anterior in time to present infin., and must therefore be changed to present
katale©ponta (Stein 130). See on §3 pibale±n epa. For metaxÅ with-
out part., as VI.7 (spurious), LSJ i.2a. No need for metaxÆ <lgonta> or
<laloÓnta> (Herwerden), for conformity with §3 and §4.
8 kaª undikzwn d kwlÓai kr±nai kaª unqewrän qeaqai kaª undeipnän

jage±n: a bare present participle often sets the scene or indicates the type of
activity on which the subject is engaged: IX.4 ½ywnän, X.3 uitän, 12
½ywnän, XIV.4 qewrän, XX.6 q©wn, 10 xen©zwn, XXII.5 trihrarcän,
XXIV.13 pitllwn, XXV.2 plwn, 3 trateu»meno, XXX.2 tiän, 5
o«nopwlän.
9 kaª lgein Âti “Calep»n mo© ti iwpn”: kaª lgein (P) is preferable to
lgwn (AB), which suggests that the explanations which follow account for (or
are in some way associated with) the behaviour just described. kaª lgein (or
e«pe±n) begins a new clause at IV.13, IX.8, XV.7, XXII.11, XXV.3, XXVI.5,
XXIX.5. Schwartz had already proposed lgein (without ka©) for lgwn. For
Âti introducing direct speech, II.8n. The supplement moi (Kassel ap. Stein
132), not aÉtäi (Gronewald), suits the space in P. täi llwi (AB) reads less
naturally, and had already come under suspicion (t¼ llo Nauck 1850). For the
transition from direct speech (with first person reference) to reported speech,
III.3, XXVI.4.
kaª Þ n Ëgräi tin ¡ glätta: n Ëgräi (HP 1.4.2, 1.14.3, of plants
which live ‘in wetness, moisture’) here combines the figurative notion of verbal
fluency (as, in a different image, E. Ba. 268 eÎtrocon . . . gläan) with a hint
of something more literal. Cf. Pers. 1.104–5 summa delumbe saliua | hoc natat in
labris et in udo est Maenas et Attis, Gell. 1.15.1 uerbis uuidis (Salmasius: ubi dis uel
(h)umidis codd.) et lapsantibus diffluunt, ibid. 17 quorum lingua tam prodiga infrenisque
274
sit ut fluat semper et aestuet conluuione uerborum taeterrima. For Ëgr», Chadwick,
Lexicographica Graeca 297–303.
kaª Âti oÉk n iwpeien oÉd ì e« tän celid»nwn d»xeien e²nai lal©tero:
the swallow is traditionally talkative (Ar. Ra. 679, Nicostr.Com. 28, Philem.
154, Phil. AP 6.247 (Gow-Page, Garland of Philip 2781), Arr. An. 1.25.8, Babr.
131.15; kwt©lh Anacr. 108, Simon. 101 ; garrula . . . hirundo Verg. G. 4.307).
But he does himself no credit with this comparison, since the swallow is also
a barbarous twitterer (e.g. A. Ag. 1050–1, Ar. Au. 1680–1, Ra. 93; Thompson,
Glossary of Greek Birds 320–1). Cf. (proverbial) trug»no lal©tero (Leutsch
on Macar. v.49 (CPG 2.183–4), Kassel and Austin on Men. fr. 309, Arnott
on Alex. 96), çac©a lal©tero (Suda R 60, Diogenian. vii.99 (CPG 1.304));
Ar. Ra. 89–91 meirakÅllia . . . EÉrip©dou . . . lal©tera. For this style of
hyperbolical comparison, W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi Proverbia 5 (Göttingen 1999)
231 –5.
10 kaª kwpt»meno Ëpome±nai Ëp¼ tän aËtoÓ paid©wn, Âtan aÉt¼n ¢dh
kaqeÅdein boulomnon kwlÅhi: his children naughtily propose that he should
talk them to sleep, at the one time when he does not wish to talk, because
he wishes to go to sleep himself. The tables are turned: the man who has
prevented others from doing what they should be doing (kwlÅein §5 and §8)
is now prevented from doing what he wants to do. We need boul»menon (a
few mss.)54 kwlÅhi (Hartung). boul»mena keleÅhi (AB) is much less effective:
lgonta alongside keleÅhi is otiose, and, if it is the children who are described
as wishing to go to sleep, their naughtiness (keeping their father awake) is lost,
and the joke (which comes in Âpw ktl.) is anticipated. aÉt . . . boul»menon
kwlÅhi (Rusten), ‘when he wants them to go to bed right now, and they stop
him by saying . . .’, also spoils the joke and enfeebles kwlÅhi. And aÉt¼ . . .
boul»meno keleÅhi leg»ntwn (Edmonds 1929), ‘who when it is late and he
would fain be sleeping and bids them do likewise, cry . . .’, is clumsy.
lgonta “Pppa, llei ti ¡m±n: cf. XX.5 toÓ pppou, 7 å mmmh.
Not taÓta (AB, om. c1 , del. Auberius) with lgonta, since T. does not
add the demonstrative to a verb of speaking before direct speech; lgonta
must stand alone, before the direct speech, like lgwn at VIII.9. The obvious
vocative is pppa, an affectionate address, particularly suited to a coaxing
request (H. Od. 6.57 Pppa j©l ì , oÉk n d moi . . .;, Ar. Pax 120 ¡n©k ì n
a«t©zht ì rton pppan me kaloÓai). To the instances of the voc. cited by
LSJ add Men. Mis. 614 Arnott (213 Sandbach), 649 (248), 969 (439), perhaps
54 Par. supp. gr. 450 (46 Wilson), according to Torraca 1974; also Marc. 513 (64 Wilson)
and Cantabr. (4 Wilson), which both have -on with a s.l. In the preceding clause,
aËtoÓ (for aÉtoÓ) is in Cantabr. and (Stefanis tells me) in Ambros. O 52 sup.
(22 Wilson) before correction and in two very late mss. (25, 65 Wilson).
275
COMMENTARY
Theoc. 15.16 (conj.). See also Frisk 2.471 –2, Chantraine 855–6, D. Bain,
Antichthon 18 (1984) 37–8, M. Golden, ‘Baby talk and child language in ancient
Greece’, in F. De Martino and A. H. Sommerstein (edd.), Lo Spettacolo delle
Voci (Bari 1995) 2.11 –34 (esp. 21, 24–5, 31), Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 81,
221, 223. For the spelling (pppa / ppa), Arnott, ‘Orthographical variants’
204. Homeric tta (Casaubon) and ttta (Needham) deserve no considera-
tion. Nor do recondite tat (Ribbeck, according to Bechert; only Myrin. AP
11.67.4 (Gow-Page, Garland of Philip 2577)), or unattested tta (Reiske 1747,
1749 (Briefe 360), 1757) and tta (Edmonds 1910); cf. Headlam on Herod.
1.60, V. Schmidt, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas (Berlin 1968) 116–17,
Frisk 2.860, Chantraine 1096, Golden 21 –2.
It is rational to change lale±n (AB) to imperative (Auberius, who printed
lale± but intended it as imperative, before Sylburg). Infin. for imper., mainly
poetical though occasionally found in prose (Goodwin §784, KG 2.20–2,
Schwyzer 2.380–2, V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (New Haven and
London 1984) ch. 6), is unwelcome in a style which is structured around infini-
tives. Their ubiquity (or the influence of keleÅhi/kwlÅhi) will have prompted
the corruption.
Âpw n ¡m Ìpno lbhi: Âpw alone (without n) introduces a subjunc-
tive in a final clause at XVIII.5 (conj.), XX.10, XXI.7, 11, XXIII.4, XXVII.8,
14, and regularly in Attic prose and verse. But Âpw n is also well attested
(Goodwin §328, KG 2.385–6, Schwyzer 2.665, 671), and is almost invariable
in Attic inscriptions before the time of Theophrastus (Meisterhans 253–4,
S. Amigues, Les subordonnées finales par OPWS en attique classique (Paris 1977) 95–
197 (cf. Bers 164–5), K. J. Dover, The Evolution of Greek Prose Style (Oxford 1997)
82). Deletion of n (contemplated by Edmonds and Austen) could be right but
is unsafe.
Ìpno tin lambnei is the normal expression: S. Ph. 766–7, E. Ion 315, Hp.
Epid. 5.2 (5.204 Littré), [Arist.] Pr. 886a 18, 916b 2, 917 a 18, Alex. 279.2, Lyc.
766. So too Pl. Smp. 223b . . . Ìpnon labe±n, where the subject of labe±n
is Ìpnon (Cobet (1858) 558) not (LSJ Ìpno i.1), since Ìpnon ti lambnei
would be abnormal (D.C. 71.24.4 oÎte trojn lupon oÎq ì Ìpnon jrontin
labe±n dunmeno is exceptional). Ìpnon ti a¬re±tai would be normal (h.Merc.
449, Th. 2.75.3, 3.49.3, D.H. 6.29.5, 14.8.1, Longus 2.7.4, 4.36.3), as would
Ìpnou ti tugcnei (XVIII.4n.) and lagcnei (XXV.6n.).
276
VIII
T H E RU M O U R - M O N G E R
Introductory note
The verb logopoie±n, in its specialised sense ‘fabricate tales’ (LSJ i.2), belongs
to the polemical vocabulary of the orators: Th. 6.38.1 (the speaker denounces
alarmist opponents) oÎte Ànta oÎte n gen»mena logopoioÓin, And. 1.54
logopo©oun o¬ cqroª perª moÓ boul»menoi diabllein me (also 3.35), Lys.
16.11 logopoioÓnta kaª yeudomnou, 22.14 oÌtw d ì menoi t umjor
t Ëmetra ¾räin ãte t mn pr»teroi tän llwn punqnontai, t d ì
aÉtoª logopoioÓin, Isoc. 5.75 taÓta jluaroÓnte kaª jkonte kribä
e«dnai . . . polloÆ pe©qoui kaª mlita mn toÆ tän aÉtän kakän
piqumoÓnta ænper o¬ logopoioÓnte, D. 4.49, 6.14, 21.198, Din. 1.32.
Hence logopoi» D. 24.15, Din. 1.35. See S. Lewis, News and Society in the
Greek Polis (London 1996) 4–5, 75–96.
The Logopoi» is a very different character from the ìAdolch (III) and
the Llo (VII). He is an impostor, who spreads news of his own invention
and uses a variety of artifices to lend it credibility. On meeting a friend he
greets him with a smile and politely inquires after his health and his news (§2).
But these are empty courtesies. Impatient to tell his own fictions, he will not
wait for an answer, and affects to believe that his friend has disclaimed any
news of his own and has asked to hear his (§2). He assures him that his news
is tasty (§3) and flatters him that he has singled him out to share a secret (§10).
He quotes unverifiable authorities (§4, §8) and pretends to be moved by the
misfortunes he narrates (§9). His news is entirely centred on a single (allegedly
historical) event; and in that respect the sketch is unique. But he appears to
present his news about this event on more than one occasion, citing different
sources to different listeners (§2n. täi j©lwi). For the persons alluded to and the
historical circumstances around which this fiction may have been fabricated
see the Introduction, pp. 29–32.
The text as transmitted by AB presents a stylistic anomaly (several instances
of indicatives where we expect infinitives), and may have suffered extensive
corruption, rewriting, or interpolation.
[1 ] Definition
The pairing l»gwn kaª prxewn is characteristic of the definitions (def. I
n.). But prxei, elsewhere actions of the character himself, are here actions
which he invents. Something has probably dropped out (æn <piteÅeqai>
277
COMMENTARY
boÅletai Diels, æn <diape©rwn emnÅneqai> b- Navarre 1924), although

it is just possible that the writer meant ‘actions which he wishes (to happen)’.
There is little point in replacing æn with Âwn (Herwerden) or Þ (E. Orth,
PhW 45 (1925) 1053–5).
2 eÉqÆ panta täi j©lwi: eÉqÅ is more effective with panta (P),
‘immediately on meeting’ (IV.13n.), showing how quick off the mark he is,
than with the following participles (AB). täi j©lwi is ‘his friend’. The article
is dispensable (XV.7, XXII.9, XXX.12), but is supported by XVII.2, XXX.5.
The friend is soon replaced by ‘someone’ (§7 ti). Since the meeting described
here will have been recurrent (the authorities cited in §4 are alternatives and
will not all have been cited at once), the identity of the friend will change from
meeting to meeting; so ti may stand for ti j©lwn. It is needless to delete
täi (which, to judge by the space available, was present in P) or write twi
(Eberhard, Cobet).55
†
katabalÜn t¼ §qo† : and so probably P (k[atabalwn to] hqo suits
the space). It is hard to believe in this expression. §qo is found in three
other passages, all spurious (VI.2n.). I rule out (what is linguistically most
straightforward) ‘dropping his usual manner’. For the verb in this sense, Luc.
Tim. 35 t¼ pnu toÓto grion kaª tracÆ katabalÛn, Lex. 1 t¼n mn er-
wna pedo± katbale (‘drop the role of erwn’), Alciphr. 4.7.8 katballe tn
mwr©an taÅthn kaª hd©an. It is unclear what his ‘usual manner’ would be.
If a solemn one (‘abiecta grauitate’ Ussing, with §qo ‘mores . . . ingenuum
hominem decentes’), we need to be told this explicitly; we cannot be left to infer
it from the smile which follows. Münsterberg (1894) takes his ‘usual manner’ to
be logopoi©a, which he drops temporarily while he asks his initial questions.
A distinction between rumour-mongering (normal manner) and questioning
(abnormal manner) is captious.
The verb is used of lowering the eyes (h.Ven. 156, h.Cer. 194, Ach. Tat. 6.6.3;
but not A. Ch. 574, adduced by LSJ ii.1). A literal lowering is not in question,
since a downward look is at odds with a smile, and §qo does not refer to
the eyes. But a figurative lowering might be possible. Jebb translates ‘giving a
demure, subdued air to his whole bearing’. §qo can mean a visible ‘bearing’
or ‘manner’ (X. Smp. 8.3 oÉc ¾rte Þ . . . aÉtoÓ . . . ¬lar¼n . . . t¼ §qo,
Hyp. 3.2 taÓt ì legen poudzoua . . . täi ¢qei, LSJ ii.2b). But ‘cast down
the bearing/manner’ is no way to say ‘assume a subdued air’; and, again, this
does not suit the smile. To translate ‘uultu demisso’ (Ast), in the sense ‘relaxing
his expression’ (Rusten), is to impute to §qo a sense which it does not strictly
have. [Arist.] Phgn. 805 b 2 t pª tän proÛpwn ¢qh (and similar expressions
55 Eberhard 1876 claims to have made the proposal before Cobet 1874, but does not
say where. It is not in his Obseruationes Babrianae (1865).
278
V I I I : T H E RU M O U R - M O N G E R
in 805 b 8, 806a 30, 807 b 11, 27, 808a 6; cf. S. Vogt, Aristoteles, Physiognomica (Darm-
stadt 1999) 298–9) refer to traits of character as revealed in facial expressions;
and Philostr. Gym. 25 ½jqalmän ¢qh (‘of facial expression’, LSJ ii.2b) must
be interpreted in the light of the preceding gignwktw d tn n ½jqalmo±
qikn pan (‘the expression of character by the eyes’, LSJ qik» ii.1). In E. Cycl.
167 katabalÜn . . . t ½jrÓ the verb is literal, ‘lower the eyebrows’ (cf. PCG
adesp. 680 Ëpokaqe±nai t ½jrÓ), in relaxation (Quint. Inst. 11.3.79 ira . . .
contractis [sc. superciliis], tristitia deductis, hilaritas remissis ostenditur), a humorous
inversion of the normal ‘raise the eyebrows’ (Pearson on S. fr. 902, Arnott on
Alex. 16.1 –2, 6–7). Stein suggests that katabalÜn t¼ §qo, where the verb has
a less literally appropriate object, is comparable to X. Smp. 3.10 napa t¼
pr»wpon (where the more literally appropriate object, as shown by Ar. Eq.
631, is mtwpon, conjectured by Dindorf, perhaps rightly; for the corruption
see Arnott on Alex. 275.4). I decline to equate §qo with pr»wpon.
Conjecture has failed: metabalÛn (Casaubon, comparing [Arist.] Phgn.
805 b 8 t¼ §qo t¼ pª toÓ proÛpou metabale±n) is implausible, because
there is nothing here to explain a change of manner or expression (contrast
§8 pr»wpa . . . metabeblhk»ta, where it is clear how and why expressions
have changed); katalabÛn Gale (k- t¼ t¦qo Herwerden), metabalÜn t¼
e²do Darvaris, metalabÛn Hartung, katalabe±n [t¼ §qo] Mey, nalabÛn
Meiser, katabalÜn t¼n mÓqon or toÆ mÅqou Sitzler, katabal»nti Ussher.56
kaª meidia rwt¦ai “P»qen Å;”: a unique reference to the facial
expression of the subject of the sketch (in §8 the faces belong to others); E. C.
Evans, Physiognomics in the Ancient World (TAPhS n.s. 59.5, 1969) 38–9, Forten-
baugh in W. W. Fortenbaugh et al. (1985) 274, Vogt (above) 97–8. For the
elliptical question, Pl. Mx. 234a ìEx gor £ p»qen Menxeno;, Phdr. 227a,
ö W j©le Fa±dre, po± d kaª p»qen;, Hor. S. 2.4.1 unde et quo Catius?.
kaª “Lgei ti;” kaª “Pä cei;”, pr¼ toÓ d e«pe±n ke±non “Kalä”:
in the latter part, pro to[u d(e) eipein ekeinon] kalw [ (P, suppl. Gronewald)
finally solves the problem of how to articulate or emend perª toÓde e«pe±n
kain¼n kaª Þ (AB). Previous suggestions, all wide of the mark, need not be
rehearsed. For pr¼ toÓ with acc. and infin., HP 9.17.3 pr¼ toÓ de©lhn genqai
(Müller (1878) 3, Hindenlang 68), D. 18.33, 60, 19.73, 75, 236, 21.110, 25.8,
Aeschin. 1.128, Lycurg. 99, Arist. Cat. 8a 10, [Arist.] Ath. 4.3, Mir. 837 a 16, Pr.
866a 26.
In the earlier part, it is possible but not certain that P had the same text as
AB: kai] | legei [ti kai pw ecei] | pro to[u d(e) (suppl. Gronewald). This
text raises two doubts. We might have expected kaª . . . d rather than d alone
(VI.9n.); and, for all we know, P may have had kai] | pro to[u d(e). Second, the
56 ËpolabÛn (Hanow) is not for katabalÛn (as Cichorius claims) but for pibalÛn
below.
279
COMMENTARY
meaning of “Lgei ti;” is unclear. Perhaps ‘Have you anything to say?’, ‘Do
you wish to say anything?’. But the expression, in this sense, is unexampled (S.
Ant. 757 boÅlhi lgein ti . . .; is only a partial parallel); it would more naturally
mean ‘Is there anything in what you say?’ (VII.2n.). Stein contemplates lgei
ti <kain»n>;, and suggests that P may have had room for [ti kainon kai pw
ecei]. This expression would be uncomfortably like the following m lgeta©
ti kain»teron; (where P may have had kain»n, and if this is right there, it rules
out kain»n here). And it is most unlikely that P had kain»n, since the line would
then be much longer than any other in this column. Some prefer “Lgei t©;”.
The order is acceptable (LSJ ti b.1 b, J. D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (Oxford
1952) 48; in verse, E. Ph. 1338 lgei d t©;, G. Thomson, CQ 33 (1939) 147–52),
but the sense (‘You are saying what?’ = ‘What is it that you are saying?’) is not,
since he has said nothing (contrast t© lgei; used differently in §3).
pibale±n “ ìErwti m lgeta© ti kain»teron; kaª mn gaq g ti
t leg»mena”: not pibalÜn rwtn “M . . .;” (AB). There is no offence
in a direct question introduced by m. Such a question need not expect a
negative answer, but may imply only apprehension or hesitation on the part
of the questioner (F. C. Babbitt, HSCPh 12 (1901) 307–17, Denniston 47–8,
Barrett on E. Hi. 794). But a question whether there is any news cannot be
followed by a statement that the news is good. No distinction is being made
here between fresh news and current news (‘Is there any further news? The news
that I have is in fact good’); if there were, ge would stand not with gaq (‘The
current news is good’) but with t leg»mena (‘The current news is good’). Thus
far, I am in agreement with Stein 136–9. I add that (a) with rwtn the part.
must be changed to pibllwn (Edmonds 1929), coincident in time with the
infin. (VII.3n.), but (b) rwtn preceded by aorist rwt¦ai and followed by
aor. e«pe±n ought to be rwt¦ai (aor. II.10, IV.13, XIII.7, XX.7; pres. XIV.2,
XV.4, XVI.6, XVIII.4, XXV.2, always in company with other presents). With
“ ìErwti m . . .;” (Kassel ap. Stein) the speaker anticipates the question which
(in his eagerness to tell his news) he pretends that his friend wishes to put to
him. The comment now follows logically: ‘You ask whether there is any news?
Yes, there is in fact good news.’ For rwti m . . . , II.10n.
The change of rwtn to rwti requires the further change of pibalÛn
(AB) to pibale±n (Stefanis and I independently). Stein believes that we can
dispense with an infin. before the direct speech. Ellipse of a verb of speech is
easy and natural when it occurs in a simple introductory clause, as [Pl.] Erx.
395e ti d ì aÉtoÓ ti boulomnou lgein ËpokroÅa ¾ Krit©a “Æ gr e«p
moi ktl.”. This is the pattern in the examples (mostly from later writers) cited
by Stein and by E. Kieckers, IF 36 (1916) 23–6. These would justify §10 kaª “De±
d ì aÉt¼n m»non e«dnai”, but not the two other examples from Theophrastus
cited by Stein: XVIII.9 kaª to± e«lhj»i ti par ì aËtoÓ kaª lgoui “P»ou;
katqou· oÉ gr colzw pw pmpein”, “Mhdn pragmateÅou ktl.”
280
(“. . . pw”, e«pe±n “Mhdn pragmateÅou ktl.” Madvig), XXV.6 kaª toÓ
alpiktoÓ d t¼ polemik¼n hmnanto kaqmeno n t¦i khn¦i “ *pag ì
k»raka ktl.” (khn¦i <e«pe±n> Pauw). Our passage has an even less straight-
forward sequence (. . . rwt¦ai . . . pr¼ toÓ d e«pe±n ke±non “Kalä”
pibalÜn “ ìErwti ktl.”). Such omission of the infin., in a clause which is
linked by d to a clause which has an infin., produces an unnatural imbalance.
For the sense of pibale±n, VII.3n. Here (as there) Ëpo- has been proposed
(ËpobalÛn Foss 1858, ËpolabÛn Hanow 1860).
With m lgeta© ti kain»teron; cf. D. 4.10 boÅleqe, e«p moi, peri»nte
aËtän punqneqai “Lgeta© ti kain»n;”, 11.17 punqan»menoi . . . e ti lgetai
neÛteron, Acts 17.21 ìAqhna±oi d pnte kaª o¬ pidhmoÓnte xnoi e« oÉdn
teron hÉka©roun £ lgein ti £ koÅein ti kain»teron, Plu. 519a m ti kain»n;,
594f romnou . . . m ti kain»teron, also Pl. Prt. 310b cited below. For the
comparative, XVI.8n., KG 2.306, E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig 2 1923)
333–5. In P, as Gronewald observes, mh leg[etai ti kainoteron kai] | would
be much longer than any other line in this column, while mh leg[etai ti
kainon kai] would be the same length as the neighbouring lines. kain»n is just
as good (lgein ti kain»n Ar. Nu. 1032, V. 527, 1053, X. Mem. 4.4.7), but not
obviously better. Stein’s claim that kain»teron is not attested in a question until
after Hellenistic times overlooks [D.] 12.5 (Anaximen. Lampsac. FGrH 72 f 41)
porä t© pot ì tai kain»teron.
With kaª mn gaq g ti t leg»mena cf. Pl. Prt. 310b “ ë Ippokrth”
jhn “oÕto · m ti neÛteron ggllei;” “OÉdn g ì ” § d ì Â “e« m gaq
ge”. The news is good because the speaker welcomes it, not because (Stein) it
makes a good story. For kaª mn . . . ge in answers, Denniston 353–5.
3 kaª oÉk a pokr©naqai e«pe±n “T© lgei; oÉqn kkoa;: cf. VII.3
metaxÆ . . . pokrinomnwi. ‘What do you mean? Have you heard nothing?’
amounts to ‘Do you mean to tell me that you have heard nothing?’. In his
eagerness to tell his own tale, he behaves as if his friend has indicated that
he has nothing to say. t© lgei; was a conventionally aggressive opening: Ar.
Nu. 1172–4 nÓn mn g ì «de±n e² präton xarnhtik¼ | kntilogik», kaª toÓto
toÉpicÛrion | tecnä panqe±, t¼ “t© lgei Å;” (Se Âte gr toÆ nant©ou
katapl¦xai boulo©meqa t¦i toiaÅthi jwn¦i crÛmeqa). A second question
often follows: Ar. Ach. 768, Nu. 367, V. 1378, Au. 57, 1233, Pl. 143, 388, Pl. Prt.
309d, D. 19.124, 21.195, 23.35, 32.15, 58.25, Strattis 13.2. For the form oÉqn,
II.2n.
dokä mo© e eÉwcein kainän l»gwn: cf. IX.3 eÉwcoÓ, Pl. R. 352b eÉw-
coÓ toÓ l»gou, 571 d tia l»gwn kalän, Phdr. 227b tän l»gwn Ëm
Lu©a e¬t©a, Ti. 27b tn tän l»gwn t©ain, Ar. fr. 162 c»rtaze tän
monwidiän (Kassel and Austin on fr. 347.1), Men. Georg. 43–5 boÅloma© ì
gaqän l»gwn . . . g[eÓ]ai, Metag. 15, Luc. Smp. 2, Lex. 1, Shakespeare,
281
COMMENTARY
Macbeth I.iv.55–6 ‘And in his commendations I am fed; / It is a banquet to me’,

Much Ado about Nothing II.iii.20 ‘His words are a very fantastical banquet, just
so many strange dishes’. For the genitive, KG 1.355–6.
4 He invents eye-witnesses, lending them plausibility by giving them names,

as Aeschines charged Demosthenes with doing (2.153, 3.99). Cf. XXIII.6
protiqeª piqanä ktoi toÅtwn ½n»mata.
kaª tin . . . oÕ jhin khkonai: this is very abnormal style, and I suspect
corruption or rewriting. Normality can be restored only by substantial change,
such as kaª <j¦ai Þ> tin . . . oÕ [jhªn] kkoen[ai]. Below, too, other
verbs of speech in the indic. appear to have been interpolated (§6 dihge±tai)
or to have ousted infinitives (§7 jei for j¦ai, §8 lgei for lgein).
tin aÉtäi . . . paragegonÜ x aÉt¦ t¦ mch: ‘He has (a soldier
etc.) arrived’, as e.g. Hdt. 1.193.4 e«ª d ji jo©nike pejuk»te n pn t¼
ped©on, not periphrastic perfect ‘(a soldier etc.) has arrived’. See KG 1.38–
40, W. J. Aerts, Periphrastica (Amsterdam 1965) 36–51, C. H. Kahn, The Verb
‘Be’ in Ancient Greek (Dordrecht and Boston 1973) 126–44, Moorhouse, Syntax of
Sophocles 205–6, Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations 73–4.
£ tratiÛth: ‘a soldier’, the noun unqualified, as e.g. IV.6 boÓn £ Ànon £
trgon, XII.12 pa±, XVI.4 Àjin, 6 mÓ, XVII.5 ballntion, XX.9 k¦po
and mgeiro. No need for tratiÛth <ti> (Edmonds 1929).
£ pa± ìA te©ou toÓ aÉlhtoÓ: a slave regularly accompanied a hoplite
on campaign (XXV.4, W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War i (Berkeley etc.
1971) 49–51, M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris 2 1987) 780–
5). The aÉlht might play (i) to troops on the march or going into battle
(M. L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford 1992) 29–30, Pritchett 105–8), (ii)
at sacrifices before battle (P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Munich
3
1920) 111 n. 15, Pritchett 109–15), (iii) to entertain the commanders (H. Berve,
Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage 1 (Munich 1926) 73–6, lists
the entertainers in Alexander’s camp). The name Asteios is attested in Attica
( J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 1 (Berlin 1901) 176, LGPN 2.76, J. S. Traill,
Persons of Ancient Athens 3 (Toronto 1995) 465) and elsewhere (LGPN 1.92, 3a.81).
Astias ( ìAt©ou Reiske 1757) is no commoner in Attica (Kirchner 176, LGPN
2.76, Traill 465–6) but is a little commoner elsewhere (LGPN 1.92, 3a.81).
Another possibility is Asteas ( ìAtou), attested in Attica (Kirchner 176, LGPN
1.76, Traill 464), and as the name of foreign residents (Osborne and Byrne 76)
and elsewhere (LGPN 1.92, 3A.81).
£ LÅkwn ¾ rgolbo: Lycon is a ‘contractor’, supplying the army with
unspecified equipment or services. For illustration of the range of contracted
work which this noun and its cognates can denote see Stein 142–3. The name
Lycon is widespread (Kirchner 2.29, LGPN 1.291, 2.288, 3a.280–1, Osborne
and Byrne 54, 87, 160, 309, 342).
282
5 [a¬ mn oÔn najoraª tän l»gwn toiaÓta© e«in aÉtoÓ, æn oÉqeª n
coi pilabqai]: this feeble comment in the indicative is insufferable. The
language is typical of an interpolator: najoraª tän l»gwn (abstract phrase-
ology reminiscent of the definitions), mn oÔn (def. I n.), toiaÓtai (epil. I n.).
najora© are not ‘sources’ (authorities), but ‘references back (to sources or
authorities)’; LSJ ii.1, Stein 145–6. For the form oÉqe©, II.2n. pilabqai is
‘attack, object to’ (VII.7n.), here with a non-personal object, as Pl. Tht. 184c
pilabqai t¦ pokr©ew ¥n pokr©nhi, ï oÉk ½rq, X. HG 2.1.32 pel-
beto n t¦i kklh©ai toÓ . . . yhj©mato. In place of aÉtoÓ I should accept
aÉtäi (ascribed by Cichorius to e; Stefanis confirms that he is right), advocated
by Stein (who compares XXI.4, XXIII.5), if I believed that this sentence was
genuine.
6 [dihge±tai d toÅtou jkwn lgein] Þ: if this is genuine, we must choose

between (i) ‘He relates (his news), claiming that these men say that . . .’, an
intolerably feeble use of dihge±tai without object, and (ii) ‘He relates, claiming
that these men say (it), that . . .’, a flaccid parenthesis unnaturally separat-
ing dihge±tai from its object. The alternatives are discussed by Stein, who
concludes that (ii) is the lesser evil. But there are further indications that the
words are not genuine: abnormal indicative (§4n.) and abnormal connective
d (VI.9n.). dihge±qai (Schneider) removes only a part of the offence. Diels
condemned a¬ mn oÔn ktl., but did not say where he thought the genuine
text resumed. Ussher condemned (as well as the previous sentence) dihge±-
tai d. But oÕ jhin khkonai, toÅtou jkwn lgein is long-winded. I
delete all five words, since oÕ jhin khkonai Þ gives a tauter construc-
tion (koÅein Þ HP 9.1.4, with genitive too e.g. Pl. Cri. 53d, Phd. 61 e, X.
Mem. 2.4.1, D. 1.22). I assume that the words were added to give a con-
struction for Þ ktl., after the preceding interpolation had separated this
clause from its governing verb khkonai. For this type of resumptive addition,
VI.2–3n. init.
Poluprcwn kaª ¾ baileÆ mchi nen©khke kaª K andro zÛgrhtai:
see the Introduction, pp. 29–32. For the career of Polyperchon, in outline,
see Berve (§4n.) 2.325–6, W. Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire (London
and New York 1992) 188–204. For Cassander, Berve 2.201 –2. The correct
spellings are Poluprcwn (B: Polup- A) (W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci
Inscriptiones Selectae i (Leipzig 1903) 12 n. 14, O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre
Sprache und ihr Volkstum (Göttingen 1906) 156, Meisterhans 91, Threatte 1.507)
and Kandro (Dittenberger no. 5 (311 bc), Hoffmann 208–9, Threatte
1.525). AB have Kandro here and §9, and there is no better reason
to accept this than there is to accept the regular misspelling Kandra
(Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1035). Stein argues that Kandro may be an accept-
able Attic spelling, because (in words other than this) Attic inscriptions tend to
283
COMMENTARY
simplify -- to -- (Meisterhans 94, Threatte, 1.513–16). This tells against, not
for, accepting -- in a literary text.
Both mchi (B) and mchn (A) are possible, but the dative is likelier. mchi
nikn, very common with acc. object, is used absolutely at E. Ph. 1143, 1416,
1472, X. HG 7.1.35, An. 2.6.5, Isoc. 4.87, 12.254 (with the noun qualified, Hdt.
4.110.1 t¦i pª QermÛdonti mchi). mchn nikn is less common, and the
noun is generally qualified: Pl. La. 191 c tn ke±, X. Cyr. 7.5.53 tn meglhn,
Isoc. 5.53 kall©thn, 8.58 tn mchn ¥n n©khan Qhba±oi Lakedaimon©ou,
Aeschin. 3.181 tn n Maraqäni mchn toÆ barbrou nika, [Arist.]
Ath. 15.3 tn pª Pallhn©di, 22.3 tn n Maraqäni, Din. 1.73 tn n LeÅk-
troi, Chron.Oxyrh. FGrH f 255.5 tn n Cairwn©ai pijanetthn mchn
ìAqhna©ou kaª BoiwtoÆ n©khen. Possible examples of mchn nikn used
absolutely are X. An. 2.1.4 (u.l. mchi), Aeschin. 3.87 (u.l. mchi gives hiatus).
In Aeschin. 2.80 oÉ to± tn e«rnhn pagge©lain ll to± tn mchn
(u.l. t mca) nikain the acc. was chosen to balance the preceding tn
e«rnhn. See also on §11 pezomac©ai kaª naumac©ai nikänte.
7 kaª n ephi ti aÉtäi “Æ d taÓta piteÅei;”, j¦ai: for Å, VII.3n.
For d introducing quoted speech, §10, I.6n., VI.9n.; introducing questions,
Denniston 173–7. j¦ai is ‘say yes’, as XVIII.4 (LSJ iii). The infin. (for jei
AB) restores normality (§4n.). If indic. is retained, a present (na©, jh© Darvaris,
jh© Hanow 1860) is needless (Headlam on Herod. 4.57, Stein 149).
[t¼ prgma] boqai gr n t¦i p»lei: cf. Hdt. 3.39.3 t prgmata . . .
§n bebwmna n te tn ì Iwn©hn kaª tn llhn ëEllda (LSJ bow ii.4). But
the postponement of gr is highly abnormal (Denniston 97–8). Blomqvist 121
(followed by K. J. Dover, CQ 35 (1985) 342 = Greek and the Greeks (Oxford 1987)
66) cites HP 4.6.1 oÉ m»non n to± lei kaª ta± l©mnai kaª to± potamo±
gr (gr om. UM, rightly followed by S. Amigues, Budé ed.; cf. Hinden-
lang 84–6) and CP 3.11.3 ¾ ¤lio xgei gr (gr is merely an unsignalled
supplement in Wimmer’s text; better ¾ <gr> ¤lio xgei Einarson). I
take t¼ prgma to be the addition of a reader who did not see that taÓta
(in the preceding sentence) can be understood as subject of boqai. Alter-
native remedies exist: t¼ prgma gr b- (Darvaris) or b- gr t¼ prgma
(Fraenkel and Groeneboom), postulating an improbable transposition from
regular order to irregular; <janer¼n> t¼ prgma· b- ktl. (Navarre 1920),
improving on <janer¼n> jei <e²nai> t¼ ktl. (Cobet 1874); <gegonnai>
jhª t¼ prgma· b- ktl. (Edmonds 1929), based on an interpolation in c
(<gegonnai>, probably designed to go with taÓta piteÅei). For gr intro-
ducing an explanatory clause with infin., IV.10n.
kaª t¼n l»gon pente©nein: the compound is rare, elsewhere intrans. only
at Ar. Pax 515 (with personal subject); cf. intrans. te©nein (LSJ b.ii), nte©nein
(XIII.3n.), pite©nein (LSJ i.2cd), and other compounds (KG 1.94).
284
kaª pnta umjwne±n [taÉt gr lgein perª t¦ mch]: the clauses are
tautologous; and a further explanatory gr-clause is an unwelcome appendage
to a sentence introduced by explanatory gr. Alternatively umjwne±n [taÉt
gr lgein] perª t¦ mch (umjwne±n with per© HP 9.4.3, LSJ umjwnw
ii.1). Hottinger proposed the larger deletion, not (as some have claimed) the
lesser. taËt (for taÓta AB) is reported from Laur. 86.3 (10 Wilson) by Torraca
(1974) 91, Stefanis (1994a) 119.
kaª polÆn t¼n zwm¼n gegonnai: the graphic metaphor, ‘broth’, ‘soup’, for
‘bloodbath’, occurs only here. R. Münsterberg, WS 17 (1895) 318, adduces
J. AJ 13.243 t¼n neÜn . . . täi zwmäi toÅtwn (cattle sacrificed on the altar
in Jerusalem) perirraine ugca t ì Iouda©wn n»mima kaª tn ptrion
aÉtän eÉbeian. But this is based on D.S. 34/35.1.4, where zwm» is a literal
broth made from the flesh of a sacrificed sow. The soup, sometimes made
from fatty animals like horse and pig (Arist. HA 520a 8–10), might contain
bones (IX.4) and meat (IX.4n., Ar. Eq. 1178, fr. 606, Pl. Ly. 209d, Telecl. 1.8,
Nicopho 21.3; cf. V. J. Rosivach, The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century
Athens (Atlanta 1994) 85–6, Pellegrino 131, Wilkins, Boastful Chef 149 n. 225),
and so is an apt metaphor for carnage on the battlefield. A variety called
zwm¼ mla (XX.6n.) was also called a¬mat©a ‘blood broth’ (Poll. 6.57, Phot.
Z 70 Theodoridis, Suda Z 136). For a similar image (a bloodbath) cf. E. Rh.
430 a¬mathr¼ pelan»; for culinary images similarly applied, Ar. Eq. 372
perik»mmat ì k oÓ keuw (Men. Sam. 292–3 katak»ptei g me | . . .
e« perik»mmata), Nu. 455–6 k mou cordn | to± jrontita± paraqn-
twn, Pl. Mil. 8 fartem (s.u.l.) facere ex hostibus, Truc. 613 te hic hac offatim conficiam
(Lipsius: officiam codd.: offigam Schoell; cf. 621, 626). Emendation is ruinous:
j»non ed. pr., ywm»n Pauw, wr»n Darvaris, diwgm»n Blaydes before
Münsterberg 1894.
The infin. gegonnai is not coordinate with preceding boqai, pente©nein,
and umjwne±n. Those infinitives explain why he answers ‘yes’ (j¦ai), while
kaª . . . gegonnai is a factual statement about the battle. Therefore gegonnai
(like the following e²nai) is constructed with j¦ai. Münsterberg 1894, delet-
ing ka© as well as taÉt . . . mch, constructs it with umjwne±n. But LSJ
(umjwnw ii.1) attests the infin. only with the passive verb. If taÉt . . . mch
were retained, it would be possible (but not preferable) to take taÉt and
polÆn . . . gegonnai as joint objects of lgein (‘they say the same things about
the battle and that . . .’).
8 e²nai d ì autäi kaª hme±on t pr»wpa tän n to± prgmain: for d . . .

ka©, VI.9n. No need for hme±on kaª (Blaydes). For autäi (Edmonds 1908,
who in 1929 attributes it to Diels 1909), 1.2n. For the identity of tän n to±
prgmain ‘those in office, political leaders’ (LSJ iii.2, Wankel on D. 18.45)
see the Introduction, p. 30.
285
COMMENTARY
¾rn gr aÉt¼ pntwn metabeblhk»ta: the present ¾rn expresses the
continued effect of his (past) seeing, as commonly with verbs denoting percep-
tion (KG 1.135, Schwyzer 2.274; IX.2n.). aÉtän (B: -»n A) must be replaced
by aÉt» (Wilamowitz ap. Diels 1909; declined by Foss 1861). aÉt» has point;
its position after the verb (Foss claimed that the order aÉt¼ gr ¾rn would
be correct) is unexceptionable (IV.9, XIV.6, XVIII.3, XX.5, XXX.11). For
the type of error (anticipatory assimilation) see on V.9 kaª aÉla©an ktl. By
contrast, aÉtän is misplaced: the natural order would be pntwn gr aÉtän
¾rn, as shown by the passages cited (in defence of aÉtän) by Stein. aÉt<¼
t>än (Edmonds 1929) is less suitable; aÉt (Reiske 1757 before Kayser) is not
naturally followed by pntwn.
<kaª> lgein d ì : addition of ka© (VI.9n.) and change of lgei (AB) to infin.
(§4n.) restore normality at small cost.
¢dh pemptn ¡mran ¤konta k Makedon©a, Á pnta taÓta o²de: ‘who
has been here four days since his arrival’, a regular use of the acc. with a
perfect (¤konta is perf. in sense), as Th. 8.23.1 tr©thn ¡mran aÉtoÓ ¤konto,
Pl. Prt. 309d Prwtag»ra pidedmhken; :: Tr©thn ge ¢dh ¡mran, Lys. 24.6
ppaumai trjwn tr©ton to tout©, X. An. 4.5.24 tn qugatra . . . nthn
¡mran gegamhmnhn, Aeschin. 3.77 bd»mhn . . . ¡mran t¦ qugatr¼ aÉtäi
teteleuthku©a, PCG adesp. 1084.3 (Men. fab. inc. 6.3 Arnott) pempt[¼]n.
gegmhka m¦na (KG 1.314 (b), Barrett on E. Hi. 907–8). With pnta taÓta
o²de cf. VII.2 pnta o²de. Not e²de (d, Darvaris, Nauck 1863), less suitable after
preceding ¾rn . . . aÉt». Deletion of taÓta (Schneider) is arbitrary.
9 kaª taÓta diexiÛn: the demonstrative (Casaubon) provides a suitable object

for diexiÛn, while pnta (B) does not, and taÓta pnta (A; cf. XVIII.4) is too
close to preceding pnta taÓta. Since taÓta and pnta are easily confused
(Diggle, Euripidea 494), perhaps they were variants, A carrying both, B only
the corrupt variant. Less plausibly taÓq ì ma c, ma Ussing before Navarre
1920, ma toiaÓta Stein.
pä oeqe: a colloquial parenthesis, like Ar. Ra. 54 pä oei (V. 1428 coni.
Starkie), more commonly pä doke± (E. Hi. 446, Hec. 1160, Ar. Ach. 12, 24, Nu.
881, Pl. 742, Arar. 13, Diph. 96.1, Theophil. 2.2; cf. p»on doke± Ar. Ec. 399,
S. fr. 373.5 coni. Herwerden). Similarly parenthetic, Pl. Smp. 216d p»h oeqe
gmei . . . wjroÅnh, Eub. 80.8–9 phl©kon tin | oeqe mgeqo. Not paren-
thetic but accommodated to the syntax, Ar. Nu. 1368 kntaÓqa pä oeq mou
tn kard©an ½recqe±n;, X. Mem. 4.2.23 nÓn d pä oei me qÅmw cein . . .;,
D. 6.20 “Pä gr oeqe,” jhn, “å ndre Menioi, ducerä koÅein
ìOlunq©ou . . .;”, much like XIV.13 p»ou oei . . . xenhncqai nekroÅ;.
See further KG 2.353–4, J. Vahlen, Hermes 24 (1889) 473–4, Pasquali (1926)
247–9 = (1986) 855–7, P. T. Stevens, Colloquial Expressions in Euripides
(Wiesbaden 1976) 39, K. J. Dover, Greek and the Greeks (Oxford 1987) 230. Stein
286
objects that a second person verb implies an auditor; but a stereotyped collo-
quialism (‘in fact merely the lively equivalent of an adverb’, Barrett on E. Hi.
446) is not answerable to such logic. oeqai (AB) cannot be saved by writing
pw (Diels), which does not effectively qualify diexiÛn (as Diels acknowledged;
he imputed the sentence to an interpolator) and is in the wrong place to qualify
oeqai (‘he somehow believes’ Rusten); and oeqai, taken with cetlizein, is
weak. Þ o³»n te (Navarre 1918; for the construction, G. W. Butterworth, CR
33 (1919) 15–17) is lame.
piqanä cetlizein: this is the rhetorical technique of cetliam» or
conquestio (‘ea pars orationis, qua conquerimur, et commoti sumus ex iniuria
uel aduersa fortuna’, J. C. G. Ernesti, Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae
(Leipzig 1795) 338), illustrated by Aps. p. 333 Hammer cmai . . . crhi
cetliatiko± Âtan lghi “à t¦ m¦ doktou (prodoktou Bake)
tÅch”, and Cic. Inu. 1.106–7 conquestio est oratio auditorum misericordiam captans. . . .
id locis communibus efficere oportebit, per quos fortunae uis in omnes et hominum infirmitas
ostenditur. . . . primus locus est misericordiae per quem quibus in bonis fuerint et nunc quibus
in malis sint ostenditur, and practised by him at Att. 3.10.2. Cf. Arist. Rh. 1386a 4–16
(pity is excited by disasters attributable to tÅch). For piqanä, XXIII.6.
Dutuc K andro· à tala©pwro: nom. of exclamation (KG 1.46,
Schwyzer 2.65–6). For the adjectives, Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 163–5, 286–
7. The commiseration is here a rhetorical t»po and is not at variance with
the earlier statement (§2) that the news (which proves to be news of Cassander’s
defeat) is good.
nqum¦i t¼ t¦ tÅch;: addressed to the friend, not Cassander (an exclama-
tion is not an address). For nqum¦i . . .;, II.2n. No need for nqumoÓ (Schwartz).57
For t¼ t¦ tÅch, Th. 4.18.3, 7.61.3, E. Alc. 785, IA 1403, Pl. Alc.2 147a, D.
4.45, Men. Asp. 248, fr. 311, Dem. Phal. fr. 81 Wehrli (below), Ariston fr. 13, ii
Wehrli. Also (proposed here by Schwartz) t t¦ tÅch: Th. 4.55.3, S. OT 977,
E. Ph. 1202, D. 4.12 (u.l. t»), Prooem. 39.2, Plb. 2.49.8, 2.50.12, 15.8.3, 25.3.9).
For the periphrasis, XXV.2 t toÓ qeoÓ. Various remarks on tÅch attributed
to Theophrastus are collected in frr. 487–501 Fortenbaugh (commentary by
Fortenbaugh, Quellen 212–28). Demetrius of Phaleron wrote a work on tÅch (frr.
79–81 Wehrli = 82A–B Stork et al. ap. W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf
(edd.), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion (New Brunswick and
London 2000)), adducing the overthrow of the Persian empire by the Mace-
donian to illustrate how t¼ t¦ tÅch calep»n (sc. ti); Walbank on Plb.
29.21, Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational 242, 259 n. 37, Bodei Giglioni 92.
†
ll ì oÔn «cur¼ gen»meno† : the lack of a finite verb is unbelievable. If
ll ì oÔn is right, <ge> gen»meno (Casaubon) is plausible (Denniston 441 –5).
57 Not Casaubon, who says only ‘interpretes uidentur nqumoÓ legisse’ (‘uide’ Lycius,
‘considera’ Auberius).
287
COMMENTARY
«cur», if right, will mean ‘powerful’, ‘strong in fighting power’ (Chadwick,

Lexicographica Graeca 166–7). There may simply be a lacuna: e.g. . . . gen»meno
<nÓn Þ qen ti> Foss 1858 (feebly expressed, but the general idea
may be right: cf. Cic. Inu. 1.106–7, quoted above), <p»lwlen> Jebb. llw
oÔn (Holland and Ilberg 1897) does not help the syntactical structure; nor do
«curä mac»meno (Coray) or «curä g ì munmeno (Wilamowitz ap. Diels).
The syntax, at least, is amended by à tala©pwro, llw «cur¼ gen»meno,
nqum¦i . . .; (Auberius), more economically by à tala©pwro (nqum¦i t¼ t¦
tÅch;) llw «cur¼ gen»meno (Herwerden before Edmonds 1908).
10 kaª “De± d ì aÉt¼n m»non e«dnai”: for d introducing quoted speech,

§7, I.6n. It is possible to understand an introductory verb of speech (see on
§2 pibale±n), and so there is no compelling reason to mark a lacuna after
ka© (Cichorius). But the text cannot be considered secure, in view of the cor-
ruption or lacuna which precedes. kaª de±n aÉt»n ge m»non e«dnai lgein . . .
prodedramhknai (Fraenkel and Groeneboom) is heavy-handed.
Not aÉt»n e, for (as m»non indicates) the pronoun is emphatic. Cf. Pl.
Grg. 472b n m aÉt¼n na Ànta mrtura parcwmai, Phd. 91 a Âpw
aÉtäi moª Âti mlita d»xei oÌtw cein; contrast Smp. 198c m . . . aÉt»n
me l©qon . . . poieien, R. 378b oÉd aÉtäi moi doke±. See Arnott on Alex.
112.3–4. For m»non in combination with the pronouns, Pl. Ly. 211 c Ëme± . . .
aÉtÜ m»nw. There is no advantage in aÉt» (printed without comment by
Stephanus and Casaubon).
[pi d to± n t¦i p»lei prodedrmhke lgwn]: cf. V.8 to± n t¦i
p»lei dihge±qai. Indicative prodedrmhke (B) must be preferred to -knai
(A), since such a perfect infin. is not naturally constructed with o³o, and, if
it were so constructed, we should expect <kaª> pi d (VI.9n.). But the
indic. prompts suspicion that the sentence may be inauthentic (Diels 1883),
a pedantic addition making explicit what may be better left inexplicit in the
preceding remark; and the perfect may betray the hand of the composer of
the lines which follow. Whoever is the author, we might consider changing
pro- (prodramÛn recurs at XXV.5) to pro- (Coray; II.8 prodramÛn B,
pro- A; cf. II.8n., XI.9n., XXIII.7n.) or even peri- (XVIII.4; §2 pro P, per©
AB). proudedramkei (prod- Schneider) is a less apt tense. pi d ì <¢dh>
(Herwerden) is uncalled for.
[11 ] Epilogue
The persons described here are public speakers, unlike the man described
above. The feeble moralising is typical of the epilogues. The rhetoric is more
than usually overwrought. Several features of vocabulary or style are shared
288
with the Preface (see Introd. Note to Preface) or with other spurious passages
(plural subject, epil. III n.; toioÅtwn epil. I n.; o¬ mn . . . o¬ d VI.7; peritei
poioÅmenoi VI.7; pnu epil. X; rgatrion epil. VI; oÌtw ka© VII. 5, epil.
XXVII).
The use of the perfects pobeblkain and Ýjlkain with no difference
in aspect from the aorist paredeipnqhan is a sign of post-classical Greek:
E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit ii.1 (Berlin and
Leipzig 1926) 176–207, P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec (Paris 1927) 235–
45, Schwyzer 2.287–8, F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (transl. and rev. R. W. Funk,
Cambridge and Chicago 1961) 175–7.
luitelä pallttoui: luitelä (fr. 154 Wimmer (526 Forten-
baugh), X. Mem. 1.7.2, D. 61.3) is a likelier correction of luitelä (AB)
than is <toÓ> luiteloÓ (Wachsmuth ap. Cichorius). For the verb, LSJ a.ii.
plttoui (Nauck 1850) and luitel¦ plttoui (Edmonds 1929) are no
improvement.
t ¬mtia pobeblkain: the verb perhaps hints that they are guilty of
contributory negligence. It was a capital offence to steal cloaks from gymnasia
(D. 24.113), and to steal (presumably cloaks) from baths ([Arist.] Pr. 952 a 17–20);
MacDowell, Law 148, D. Cohen, Theft in Athenian Law (Munich 1983) 69–83.
Cf. Pl. Rud. 382–4, Cat. 33.1, Petr. 30.7–11, Sen. Ep. 56.2, D.L. 6.52; Ginouvès,
Balaneutikè 215, Gow on Macho 100f., Dunbar on Ar. Au. 497.
pezomac©ai kaª naumac©ai nikänte: a conventional pairing of nouns (Hdt.
8.15.1, Th. 1.23.1, 1.100.1, 2.89.8, Plb. 5.69.7, D.S. 13.51.7), as with verbs (Th.
1.112.4 naumchan kaª pezomchan, Lys. 2.47, Isoc. 7.75, X. HG 1.1.14,
Lycurg. 72); cf. Cic. Sen. 13 nec tamen omnes possunt esse Scipiones aut Maximi, ut
urbium expugnationes [cf. the following p»lei . . . kat krto a¬roÓnte], ut
pedestres naualesque pugnas . . . recordentur. For the dative, Hdt. 7.10b.2 nikante
naumac©hi, X. HG 1.6.2, and on §6 mchi nen©khke. But pezomac©a kaª nau-
mac©a (Münsterberg 1895) is an appealing plural and an acceptable acc. (e.g.
D. 21.169 naumac©a nenikhk»te). By a common rhetorical device the speakers
are represented as doing what they are describing: Isoc. 5.75 (of logopoio©,
quoted in the Introd. Note) tacw panta täi l»gwi katatrej»menoi
(‘overthrowing the whole world’), Liv. 44.22.8 in omnibus circulis atque etiam, si dis
placet, in conuiuiis sunt qui exercitus in Macedoniam ducant. The device is commonly
applied to writers (R. Kassel, RhM 109 (1966) 8–10 = Kleine Schriften (Berlin and
New York 1991) 366–8, McKeown on Ov. Am. 2.18.2).
rmou d©ka Ýjlkain: by default, through failure to attend (LSJ r¦mo
iii.1).
p»lei täi l»gwi kat krto a¬roÓnte paredeipnqhan: cf. Pl. Ba.
966 urbis uerbis qui inermus capit. The verb paradeipne±n is attested only in
Amphis 31.
289
COMMENTARY
po©ai gr n toi, po©wi d rgathr©wi, po©wi d mrei t¦ gor oÉ

dihmereÅouin . . . ;: not (with datives) po©ai gr oÉ (AB) toi . . . oÉk ndih-
mereÅouin (Schneider, oÉk nhm- Diels), since we do not want two negatives
in this sentence; nor (with nom.) po©a gr oÉ to, po±on d rgatrion
(AB), po±on d mro . . . oÕ (Foss 1858, <oÕ> oÉ Nauck 1863 before Blaydes
and Cichorius) dihmereÅouin, since po©a gr oÉ . . . <oÕ> (or <oÕ> oÉ)
should properly be po©a gr . . . <oÕ> oÉ. The simple remedy is to replace
the first oÉ with n (Ast, unaware that Darvaris had proposed n po©ai gr the
year before). For omission of n with the two following nouns, XXIV.11 n., KG
1.548–9, Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides 23–4.
290
IX
THE SHAMELESS MAN
Introductory note
Aristotle (EN 1108a 31 –5, EE 1221 a 1 ; cf. MM 1193 a 1) defines naicunt©a in
relation to a mean of a«dÛ (modesty): excess of a«dÛ is katplhxi (bashful-
ness), deficiency is naicunt©a (shamelessness). At EE 1233 b 26–9 the modest
man is described as heeding the opinion of those who appear reasonable (tän
jainomnwn pieikän), the bashful man every opinion, the shameless man none
(¾ . . . mhdemi jront©zwn d»xh na©cunto). Elsewhere (Rh. 1383 b 13–
15) Aristotle defines naicunt©a as ‘contempt and indifference (½ligwr©a
ti kaª pqeia) with regard to misdeeds which seem to lead to dishonour
(dox©a)’. Indifference to reputation or to the opinion of others is character-
istic of the na©cunto: EN 1115 a 13–14 ¾ mn gr joboÅmeno (sc. dox©an)
pieik kaª a«dmwn, ¾ d m joboÅmeno na©cunto, Rh. 1368b 22–3 ¾ d ì
na©cunto (sc. dik» ti) di ì ½ligwr©an d»xh, Pl. Lg. 701 a t¼ gr tn
toÓ belt©ono d»xan m jobe±qai di qro, toÓt ì aÉt» tin ced¼n ¡
ponhr naicunt©a. Cf. Plu. Alc. 13.5 (quoted on VI.2–3).
The ìAna©cunto of Theophrastus takes advantage of others (credi-
tors, neighbours, tradesmen, guests) and carries off his petty sharp prac-
tices with brazen jocularity. He manifests his shamelessness solely in greed
and stinginess. The association between shamelessness and greed is tradi-
tional: Pi. N. 9.33 a«dÜ gr Ëp¼ krÅja krdei klptetai, Pl. Hipparch. 225b
jilokerde±n di ì naicunt©an, Lg. 941 b klop mn crhmtwn neleÅqeron,
rpag d na©cunton, Isoc. 17.8 t mn gr crmata p»ll ì e²nai t par ì
aËtäi ke©mena kaª xi ì naicunt©a, X. Cyr. 2.2.25 pr¼ . . . t¼ pleonekte±n
jodroª kaª na©cuntoi, Is. 1.8 tn mn oÔn toÅtwn naicunt©an kaª tn
a«crokrdeian, D. 27.38 taÓt ì oÉ meglh kaª perijan naicunt©a; taÓt ì
oÉc Ëperbol dein¦ a«crokerde©a;, Arist. Rh. 1383 b 22–30 (naicunt©a
manifested in a«crokrdeia and neleuqer©a). See the Introd. Notes to XXII
( ìAneleÅqero) and XXX (A«crokerd).
[1 ] Definition
For Aristotle naicunt©a is necessarily associated with indifference to rep-
utation; for him and for others it may be, but need not be, associated with
krdo (Introd. Note). The definition makes krdo a necessary associate, as
does [Pl.] Def. 416a naicunt©a xi yuc¦ Ëpomenhtik dox©a neka kr-
dou (Ingenkamp 102). The two definitions are related to each other. Ours
could be based on the sketch, where all the actions of the ìAna©cunto may
291
COMMENTARY
be said to be prompted by krdo. If so, ours was the model for [Pl.] Def. If,
conversely, ours is based on [Pl.] Def. (as others appear to be), then either [Pl.]
Def. is based on the sketch or both [Pl.] Def. and the sketch focus on krdo
independently of each other. See Stein 168–70.
Þ Ârwi labe±n: def. I n.
katajr»nhi: cf. Arist. Rh. 1380a 20–1 ¡ d ì naicunt©a ½ligwr©a kaª
katajr»nhi · æn goÓn polÆ katajronoÓmen oÉk a«cun»meqa. For similar
terminology see the passages cited in the Introd. Note.
d»xh a«cr neka krdou: equivalent to dox©a neka krdou in [Pl.]
Def. (quoted above). a«cr (ascribed to c2 by Stefanis (1994a) 70) with d»xh
(as D. 20.10, LSJ d»xa iii.3) is preferable to a«croÓ (AB) with krdou, since
the epithet is less suitable here than in the definition of a«crokrdeia (XXX);
and neka krdou (B) to krdou e¯neka (A), less likely word order (in view of
[Pl.] Def.), and e¯neka (a regular variant) belongs to later prose (Barrett on E.
Hi. 453–6). For variations in word order between A and B, II.3n.
2 toioÓt» <ti>: for <ti> (added by Cobet 1874 before Diels), I.2n.
präton mn Án potere± pr¼ toÓton panelqÜn dane©zeqai: ‘whom he
is defrauding’, by withholding money which he owes, probably a small-scale
loan, such as was regularly made between neighbours (Millett, Lending and Bor-
rowing 145). The verb potere±n embraces a variety of transactions which
involve another in financial loss (D. Cohen, Theft in Athenian Law (Munich
1983) 13–33). It commonly denotes failure or refusal to repay a loan: e.g. Ar.
Nu. 1305–6 poter¦ai boÅletai | t crmaq ì dane©ato, Ec. 449 kaª
taÓt ì pojrein pnta koÉk potere±n, D. 35.42 dane©zeqai . . . nautik
crmata kaª taÓt ì potere±n kaª m podid»nai (Cohen 18–22). The
present tense (very common with this verb) indicates the continued effect of
an action performed or begun in the past (VIII.8n., KG 1.135–7, Rijksbaron,
Grammatical Observations 1 –4). The conjectures potereie (Schneider) and
petrhe or petrhke (Hanow 1860) are ill-conceived. For the acc. of
person (only), LSJ i.3, KG 1.328 (add Is. 9.31, 10.17, 34.27, 49.61). Aristotle
includes, among shameworthy actions, withholding a deposit (Rh. 1383 b 20 t¼
poter¦ai parakataqkhn) and asking for a loan from a man who wants
his money back (1383 b 27).
He ‘returns’ (panelqÛn, as I.4, XXV.7) to the man he is defrauding. This
conjecture makes explicit an important detail, and does so more convincingly
than plin lqÛn (Herwerden). pelqÛn (AB) ‘departing’ is wrong, since
there is no indication where he departs from; in XI.7, XXII.3 departure is
from a specified place; in VII.6, XVI.14 (conj.), XXI.11 it is from the place of
the activity previously described or implied; and so it is in X. Cyr. 3.2.2, An.
4.8.6, which Stein cites to support his translation of pelqÛn as ‘returning’.
If (what is not specified) he departs from home, that is of no interest; in any
292
IX: THE SHAMELESS MAN
case that would be xelqÛn (XVI.10, XIX.6, 7, XXVI.4). pelqÛn (Feraboli)

is mistaken: Theophrastus says proelqÛn (I.2 etc.). For Án . . . pr¼ toÓton,
III.2n.
2–3 e²ta < kaª> qÅa to± qeo±: there is likely to be a

lacuna, because qÅa ktl. brings a change of scene, and Theophrastus links
new scenes with a bare ka© or kaª . . . d. At III.2 präton mn . . . e²ta introduce
activities of which the second not only follows next in time the activity which
precedes but is also a logical sequel to it (similarly e²ta alone, XIII.6, XXV.4;
kita IV.7). Stein claims that the picture is complete in itself, and that word
order (präton mn standing at the head of the clause instead of before pr¼
toÓton or dane©zeqai) precludes elaboration. But the missing clause may have
described a subsequent act of financial malpractice at the expense of a different
party. Petersen, who (before Steinmetz) added the necessary ka©, transposed
e²ta before pr¼ toÓton, where it is not appropriate.
3 aÉt¼ mn deipne±n par ì trwi: cf. Men. fr. 225.4 ¯na . . . deipn¦i par ì
troi. A sacrifice is followed by a feast (P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kul-
tusaltertümer (Munich 3 1920) 106, Burkert, Homo Necans 6–7, J. D. Mikalson,
Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill and London 1983) 89–90, R. A. Seaford,
Ritual and Reciprocity (Oxford 1994) 42–53, V. J. Rosivach, The System of Public Sac-
rifice in Fourth-Century Athens (Atlanta 1994) 2–3, 9–10). It is customary to invite
friends and relations (Ar. Pl. 223–8, Antipho 1.16, X. Mem. 2.3.11, 2.9.4, Isoc.
19.10, Is. 1.31, 8.15–16, Men. Dysc. 613–14; XXII.4n.) or send them presents
of food (XV.5n.). Not to share the meal is inhospitable (Luc. Tim. 43); to dine
out is shameless (X. HG 3.1.24 a«cr¼n m tequk»ta xen©zeqai Ëp¼ oÓ ll
m xen©zein ).
t d kra potiqnai lª pa: cf. H. Il. 9.214 pe d ì l», Ar.
Pax 1074 to±d ì l© ge pata taut©, Crates Com. 16.10, Alc.Com. 17.2,
Archestr. 14.7, 37.8, 57.4 Olson and Sens (Lloyd-Jones and Parsons, SH 144.7,
167.8, 188.4); for potiqnai, XIV.6, XXII.5. Salt is a preservative: Blümner,
‘Salz’, RE i.2a (1920) 2090, K. F. Kiple and K. C. Ornelas (edd.), The Cambridge
World History of Food (Cambridge 2000) 848, Dalby 290–1. For salt in general,
Olson and Sens on Archestr. 14.7. F. Frost, ‘Sausage and meat preservation in
antiquity’, GRBS 40 (1999) 241 –52, misinterprets this passage (at 244) through
failing to recognise the syntactical relationship of this clause to its context (next
note).
kaª prokalemeno t¼n k»louqon: this resumes the narrative which
began at aÉt¼ mn deipne±n par ì trwi and was interrupted by the quasi-
parenthetic t d kra potiqnai lª pa. The ‘parenthesis’ might have
been expressed with subordination (aÉt¼ deipne±n par ì trwi t kra po-
qeª lª pa), but instead is coordinated, to neater effect. There is no
293
COMMENTARY
lacuna between ka© and prokalemeno (Edmonds 1910). Nor do these words
begin a new scene (Edmonds, Stein). There is similar behaviour at XXX.16
(the A«crokerd) jrtera tiän a«te±n to± autoÓ paiªn k toÓ koinoÓ
Àyon. But the A«crokerd asks; the ìAna©cunto takes without asking, and
adds to his offence by telling the slave, in everyone’s hearing, to enjoy his meal.
He means what he says. The Roman custom of handing food to a slave for later
consumption by the master at home (Mart. 2.37.8, 3.23, Luc. Symp. 11, Herm.
11) has no bearing on this scene. Nor has the behaviour of the jilrguro in
Lib. Decl. 32.26, who tells his slave to eat, then signals to him to keep the food
for home. Contrast Ath. 128d–e.
For t¼n k»louqon, the slave who accompanies his master out of doors,
XVIII.8, XXI.4, XXIII.8, XXVII.12, XXX.7; Wyse on Is. 5.11, V. Ehrenberg,
The People of Aristophanes (Oxford 2 1951) 177.
doÓnai rton kaª kra p¼ t¦ trapzh ra: cf. II.10 ra ti tän p¼
t¦ trapzh. The order which I have restored is more natural than that of
either A (doÓnai p¼ t¦ trapzh rton kaª kra ra) or B (doÓnai p¼
t¦ trapzh ra kra kaª rton). The pair of nouns is badly placed, alike
in A (separating p¼ t¦ trapzh from ra) and B (parenthesising p¼
t¦ trapzh ra). I assume that these words were omitted in an ancestor,
written in the margin or above the line, and then incorporated in different
places in A and B (II.3n.). During this process the order of the nouns became
reversed in B: the order rton kaª kra (A), not kra kaª rton (B), is the
norm (Ar. Eq. 282, Pl. 320, X. Cyr. 1.3.4, D.S. 33.7.2, Hp. VM 8, Int. 12 (1.586,
7.196 Littré), Gal. 1.633, 6.571, 8.566 Kühn, Luc. Sat. 7; with words interposed
between the nouns, H. Od. 17.343–4, Ar. Pl. 1136, and often). rto (rtoi
XXX.2) is baked wheat-bread (Olson on Ar. Pax 1, 119–21, Olson and Sens on
Matro 1.4–5 and Archestr. 5.15–16, Pellegrino 51 –2, Dalby 58–61).
kaª e«pe±n kou»ntwn pntwn “EÉwcoÓ, T©beie”: Tibeios is an ethnic
name of slaves (Men. Her. 21, 28, Mess. (PCG vi.2 p. 159), Per. 3, fr. 172, 241,
Luc. Gall. 29, Tim. 22, Philops. 30, Merc.Cond. 25, Salt. 29, DMeretr. 9.5, Metrod.
AP 14.123.11, Synes. Ep. 3), common in Paphlagonia (Str. 7.3.12, 12.3.25),
derived from Tibeion in Phrygia (St.Byz. p. 622.12–13 T©beion (AV: -ion R:
item in seqq.) t»po (Àro A) Frug©a p¼ Tibe©ou (T©bou Kaibel) tin».
k toÅtou kaª Tibe©ou toÆ doÅlou kaloÓi; cf. Suda T 555 Tib©a· Âlh ¡
Frug©a oÌtw kale±tai, Leucon 4). See M. Lambertz, Die griechischen Sklaven-
namen (Vienna 1907) 71, Headlam on Herod. 1.1, L. Robert, RPh 33 (1959) 229
n. 5, id. Noms indigènes dans l’Asie-Mineure Gréco-Romaine 1 (Paris 1963) 530–1, L.
Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prague 1964) §1556, Kleinasiatische Ortsna-
men (Heidelberg 1984) §1335, S. Lauffer, Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion (Wies-
baden 2 1979) 129, Ch. Fragiadakis, Die attischen Sklavennamen von der spätarchaischen
Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit (Athens 1988) 375, al., P. M. Fraser in S. Horn-
blower and E. Matthews (edd.), Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence
294
(Oxford 2000) 152. The name, corrupted in AB, is found in the epitome M and
its scholium T©bie doulik¼n Ànoma Þ kaª Dr»mwn kaª Gta kaª t toiaÓta
(which is of a piece with S uet. Ar. Ach. 243 e«ª d kaª n t¦i kwmwid©ai o«ktai
Xanq©a T©bio w©a Do Gta, S Luc. 80.9 Ànoma doulik¼n ¾ Parmnwn,
ãper ¾ Dr»mwn kaª ¾ T©bio kaª Âa lla p¼ gnou kale±tai, Þ ¾ FrÅ-
gio, Gal. 10.4 Kühn Gtai kaª T©bioi kaª FrÅge kaª Qrike rgurÛnhtoi)
and in Mc2 (Introduction, pp. 39–40, 43 n. 147), and was conjectured by C.
Salmasius (Plinianae Exercitationes in Caii Iulii Solini Polyhistora (Paris 1629) 47).
The spelling T©beio is guaranteed by inscriptions (W. Schulze, RhM 48 (1893)
257 = Kleine Schriften (Göttingen 2 1966) 421 –2, Threatte 1.317, LGPN 1.435,
2.427, Osborne and Byrne nos. 806–7, 2927, 7134) and is preserved in papyri
of Menander.
4 kaª ½ywnän d Ëpomimnkein t¼n kreopÛlhn e ti crimo aÉtäi ggone:

the present part. ½ywnän sets the scene (VII.8n.), ‘when he is shopping for
Àya’. The word Àyon embraces various kinds of food, such as meat (XXII.7,
and here), fish (LSJ i.3, Gow on Macho 28, Arnott on Alex. 47.6, J. Davidson,
CQ 43 (1993) 62 n. 74), vegetables (XXII.7), all eaten as a supplement to bread,
the staple food. See further J. E. Kalitsunakis, ‘ ïOYON und ìOYAé RION’, in
Festschrift . . . P. Kretschmer (Vienna 1926) 96–106, A. Hug, ‘ ïOyon’, RE xviii.1
(1939) 759–60, J. Davidson, ‘Opsophagia: revolutionary eating in Athens’, in
J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, M. Dobson (edd.), Food in Antiquity (Exeter 1995) 205–13,
S. D. Olson and A. Sens, Archestratos of Gela (Oxford 2000) xlix–li, and their
note on Archestr. 9.2. Athenians might do their own shopping (X.12, XI.8,
XXII.7, Carey on Lys. 1.8) or leave it to slaves (XIV.9, XVIII.2, X. Mem. 1.5.2,
Oec. 7.35, 8.22, Men. Sam. 189–95, Antiph. 69), but not to wives (II.9n.).
For butchers, VI.9n. For the noun kreopÛlh (first here, next Macho 305),
G. Berthiaume, Les rôles du mágeiros (Leiden 1982) 62–3, J. Wilkins in Tria Lustra:
Essays and Notes presented to John Pinsent (Liverpool Classical Papers 3, ed. H. D.
Jocelyn, 1993) 123. Long before kreo- was restored by Blaydes, krew- (AB) had
been proscribed from Attic by Porson (ed. Hec. (London 1797) x) and Lobeck
(Phrynichi Eclogae (Leipzig 1820) 693–5).
To remind another of past favours is bad form (XXIV.3n.). For the turn of
phrase e ti crimo aÉtäi ggone cf. D. 36.44 poll kaª täi äi patrª
kaª oª kaª Âlw to± Ëmetroi prgmai Form©wn ggone crimo, Men.
Dysc. 320 kaª crim» g ì e² n D© ì e« t loip moi, PCG adesp. 1093.80
d]Ånamai genqai cri[m]o kgÛ t© oi, Alciphr. 4.6.1 t mn lla n o³
aÉt¦i crh©mh ggona; Dover, Greek Popular Morality 296–9, Whitehead on
Hyp. Phil. 10. For a similar request (to a fishmonger) to throw in something
extra free, Antiph. 204.5–6.
kaª thkÜ pr¼ täi taqmäi mlita mn kra, e« d m ½toÓn e«
t¼n zwm¼n mbale±n: for thkÛ, XI.4, Ar. Ra. 1378 par©taqon par tÜ
295
COMMENTARY
pltigge. For taqm» ‘balance, scales’, Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca 259–

60. With mlita mn kra, e« d m cf. XVIII.7 mlita mn m doÓnai, n
d ì ra ktl. (LSJ mla iii init.).
We should probably take kra, no less than ½toÓn, with e« t¼n zwm»n.
Soup needs meat (VIII.7n.). In default of meat a bone will serve, for it will at
least have scraps of meat on it (Rosivach (§3n.) 85–6), and perhaps its marrow
will add flavour.58 For the prepositional phrase, XXX.18 la©ou toÓ e« t¼n
lÅcnon, Ar. Pax 1263 (d»rata) e« craka, X. Oec. 9.6 k»mon gunaik¼ t¼n
e« ort . . . q¦ta ndr¼ tn e« ort kaª p»lemon, D. 4.28 ekoin e«
tn naÓn mna±, Theoc. 5.98 cla±nan malak¼n p»kon; Diggle, Studies on the
Text of Euripides 28–9, 69. Although the words can equally mean ‘throw a bone
into the soup’ (Pl. Lys. 209d yomnwn kreän Âti n boÅlhtai mbale±n e« t¼n
zwm»n), the context leaves no ambiguity, and emendation is futile. Not zug»n
(c2 d), since this noun, while it can denote the scales in general (e.g. Pl. Prt. 356b
ta n täi zugäi), properly denotes the beam, and so does not consort well
with mbale±n, which invites the more specific pltigga (Pl. Ti. 63b tiqeª
e« pltigga, R. 550e n pltiggi zugoÓ keimnou katrou). Much less
wr»n (Ussing), ånon (Naber), ywm»n (Münsterberg 1894). Additions such as
½toÓn <a«te±n> (Petersen) and mbale±n <keleÓai> (Immisch 1923) lessen
the degree of naicunt©a and the relevance of his standing beside the scales.
kaª n mn lbhi, eÔ cei, e« d m, rpa p¼ t¦ trapzh col©kion
ma gelän palltteqai: ‘if he gets it’, i.e. if the butcher allows him to have
it as a return for past favours (LSJ lambnw a.ii.1 ‘have given one, get, receive’
(as XXIII.2); often (as XVIII.9) of getting from a vendor, a.ii.1.h, Fraenkel on
A. Ag. 275, Kassel and Austin on Ar. fr. 258.1, Arnott on Alex. 15.18–19). This
is better than lqhi (d; the corruption, I.2n.), ‘if he is undetected’, because
surreptitious theft weakens the point of the preceding clause (the reminder
of past favours) and is not naicunt©a, unlike the brazen-faced theft which
follows the butcher’s refusal (Pl. Lg. 941 b klop mn crhmtwn neleÅqeron,
rpag d na©cunton).
The brief indicative phrase eÔ cei is perhaps acceptable (compare the for-
mulaic pä oeqe at VIII.9). But it is tempting to delete it (Kayser 1860
before Herwerden 1871 , Cobet 1874) and thereby restore an idiomatic ellipse:
Th. 3.3.3 £n mn xumb¦i ¡ pe±ra· e« d m, Mutilhna©oi e«pe±n ktl., Pl. Prt.
325d n mn kÜn pe©qhtai· e« d m, ktl. (LSJ e« b.vii.2, KG 2.484–5, Good-
win §482, to whose citations may be added S. fr. 458, Ar. Th. 536, Men. fr.
659, Pl.Com. 23). Ellipse, however, is not invariable: Pl. Hp.Ma. 295b n mn
eÌrwmen, kllita xei· e« d m, trxw.
58 ‘We can’t afford meat every day . . .’. ‘When I was a girl,’ said Lady Nollard, ‘there
was an excellent cheap and nourishing soup or broth we used to make for the cottagers
on the estate. Quite a meal in itself, made of bones of course’ (Barbara Pym, A Glass
of Blessings (1958) ch. 2).
296
trpeza is a shop counter or stall (Wycherley, ‘Market of Athens’ 16–17 =

Stones of Athens 99, id. Agora iii 192–3). col©kion (elsewhere only Poll. 6.52) is
‘cow’s guts’ (‘uilissima uiscerum pars’ Ussing), diminutive of c»lix (Ar. Eq. 1179,
V. 1144), more commonly c»like (Ar. Pax 717, Ra. 576, fr. 83, 702, Pherecr.
113.15, Diox. 1.2, Eub. 63.4; Pellegrino 100).
5 kaª xnoi d aËtoÓ qan gorai m doÆ t¼ mro <un>qewre±n:

the xnoi will be visitors from abroad who are staying with him; perhaps
the occasion is the City Dionysia, which was attended by foreigners (III.3n.).
The A«crokerd borrows money par xnou par ì aËtäi katalÅonto
(XXX.3). For xnoi . . . aËtoÓ, XIV.10n.
The visitors buy theatre seats for themselves and their host. A generous host
might have paid the whole cost; he fails to repay them even for the cost of his
own seat. With gora (AB) the host buys the seats. This is awkward on
two counts. First, it makes no sense to say that he buys the seats and then fails
to pay his share, if he buys them with his own money. It would make sense if
he buys them with money lent by his visitors. But we cannot be left to infer
that he is using borrowed money; this would be a point of crucial importance,
and it would have to be stated explicitly. Further, ‘having bought seats for his
guests, having failed to pay his share’ leaves it unclear (and commentators have
debated fruitlessly) whether he buys a seat for himself as well as his guests or
takes one of the seats which he has bought for them or squeezes himself into a
space smaller than he has paid for.59 If his guests have bought the tickets and
he fails to pay his share, there is little scope for ambiguity: the natural inference
is that they have bought him a ticket, for which he does not repay them. It
has sometimes been inferred (from the unemended text) that xnoi could not
buy seats themselves but must have them bought for them by citizens. Pickard-
Cambridge, DFA 266 n. 8, rightly declines to make such an inference. The
passages adduced by Ussher (D. 18.28, 44.37), with the approval of Arnott on
Alex. 42, are irrelevant.
qa is ‘place for seeing from, seat in the theatre’: LSJ iii.1 and the inscriptions
cited by A. S. Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees (Hildesheim etc.
1983) 292–4. With doÆ t¼ mro cf. D. 41.11 umbalqai t¼ mro. The
compound <un>qewre±n (Cobet 1874, O. Benndorf, ZöG 26 (1875) 25 n. 1,
28), which recurs in VII.8, is highly desirable: he shares in the spectacle, but
not in the cost. Cf. IV.5n.
gein d kaª toÆ ËoÆ e« tn Ëtera©an kaª t¼n paidagwg»n: his
conduct on the previous day has established that he expects his visitors to
pay for his children and their paidagogos. For the phraseology, XXX.6 pª
59 There is a strange misunderstanding in Csapo and Slater 290 (‘He buys places at the
theater for his foreign guests, then does not give them the seats’).
297
COMMENTARY
qan . . . poreÅeqai gwn toÆ ËoÅ. For children at the theatre, Pickard-
Cambridge, DFA 263–4; slaves, 265. For d ka©, VI.9n.; e« tn Ëtera©an, Od.
56, Hdt. 4.113.2, X. An. 2.3.25, D. 19.15, KG 1.470 (LSJ e« ii.2).
Casaubon restored toÆ u¬oÅ, Edmonds 1908 toÆ ËoÅ, for toÆ Þ A,
toÆ B. Editors prefer toÆ u¬e± (cd). Attic inscriptions show that Ë- not u¬-
was the normal spelling in 3rd declension forms from earliest times and in
2nd declension forms from the middle of the fifth century, and that u¬- is
scarcely ever attested between c. 450 bc and c. 100 bc; and that after c. 350 bc
2nd declension terminations had replaced 3rd (Meisterhans 59–60, 144–5,
Threatte 1.338–42, 2.220–2, 735; also KB 1.506–8, Schwyzer 1.573–4, Arnott,
‘Orthographical variants’ 215–16, and, for the distribution of forms in the mss.
of the orators, Wyse on Is. 2.2). Cf. XVII.7 u¬» V; XIX.2 Ë»n and u¬»n
conjectured for aÉt»n V; XXI.3 u¬»n V; XXVII.3 u¬oÓ V; XXX.6 u¬oÅ V,
u¬e± AB. Stein, who advocates u¬e± both here and at XXX.6, observes that the
earliest instance of a 2nd declension plural cited by Meisterhans (144 n. 1250)
is from the second century (ËoÅ IG ii2 1236.3, dated ‘ante 150’ by Threatte
1.341, ‘ca. 180’ 2.222). I add that Threatte (1.340, 2.221) cites two instances of
Ëo© (ii2 3856.2, post 250; 4031, init. saec. ii). The latest instances of Ëe± (to say
nothing of u¬e±, which was never a regular form) cited by him (1.340, 2.221)
are IG ii2 103.20 (369/8), 218.17 (346/5). Plurals are rare. While we cannot
be sure that Ëe± did not survive a little longer, there is equally no evidence
that it did. In the much commoner singular the 3rd declension disappears by
c. 350 bc.
6 wnhmno xia: for the adj., III.3n.
7 kaª pª tn llotr©an o«k©an lqÜn dane©zeqai kriq, pot <d> cura:
deletion of tn (Cobet 1874) is needless (XXX.8 täi llotr©wi, sc. la©wi; cf.
XXV.7). dane©zeqai may be applied to the borrowing of goods (IV.11 n.) no less
than of money (Korver, Crediet-Wezen 82–3). For kriqa©, Pritchett 185–6, Olson
and Sens on Archestr. 5.4, Dalby 45–6. The cura (wheat straw, II.3n.) are for
use, like the barley, as animal fodder (Pritchett 182–3, Chadwick, Lexicographica
Graeca 57–8). For the ellipse of pot mn, Plb. 6.15.8, 10.30.9, 12.4.8, Ariston
fr. 14, VIII Wehrli (Wilamowitz on E. Herc. 635, Denniston 166). For d, VI.9n.
kaª taÓta <toÆ> cranta nagkai pojrein pr¼ aËt»n: cf.
XXI.8 t mn lla pnta doÓnai täi paidª penegke±n okade. He might be
expected to repay such a loan in kind (Millett, Lending and Borrowing 31 –9, 140–
5, on reciprocal loans between neighbours). pr¼ aËtoÅ (Edmonds 1929) is
wrong: these comestible items were not returnable. So, for the same reason, is
<t¼n> cranta (Sicherl).
8 dein¼ d ka©: VI.9n.
298
pr¼ t calk©a t n täi balane©wi proelqe±n: t calk©a are ‘the bronze

cauldrons’, presumably (as the definite article suggests) a recognised area in
the baths (similarly Teles (p. 41 Hense2 ) ap. Stob. 4.33.31 bad©a . . . pr¼
tn kminon oÕ t calk©a [calke±a codd.]), plural of calk©on, ‘bronze vessel’,
sometimes specifically for heating liquids (Ar. fr. 345, Eup. 99.41, [Arist.] Spir.
483 b 20; D. A. Amyx, Hesperia 27 (1958) 218–19), elsewhere associated with
bathing (Ar. fr. 109, Eup. 272, PMich.Zen. 65.2 (245/4 bc), Poll. 10.63); LSJ
Rev.Suppl. calk©on i.2 (to which this passage should be added). Not calke±a
(AB, and LSJ calke±on ii.1 ; for the misspelling, XVIII.4n.). Cf. Ginouvès,
Balaneutikè 205.
Better proelqe±n (A) than proelqÛn (B). In proelqÜn kaª bya, the
ka© (‘and then’) links participles of which the former is anterior in time to
the latter. This (though it might have been expressed by proelqÜn bya,
like II.6 primeno e«engka, VIII.2 panta . . . katabalÛn, XI.2
panta . . . naurmeno, XVI.10 protxa . . . xelqÛn, XXII.9
pro·d»meno pokmya, XXV.5 keleÅa ËpolabÛn) is regular enough
(IV.9 prokalemeno kaª pilab»meno, V.2 propmya kaª rwta,
XIV.2 logimeno ta± yjoi kaª kejlaion poia, 6 labÛn <ti>
kaª poqe©, XVI.5 pª g»nata peÜn kaª prokuna, XXV.4 kpmya
kaª keleÅa, 5 prodramÜn kaª qarre±n keleÅa). But dein» is then
abnormally far from the infin. katacaqai, with three participial phrases
intervening; dein» normally has an infin. very close at hand, and only once
does a participial phrase intervene, and that a brief one (XIV.8 dein¼ d kaª
polambnwn rgÅrion ½jeil»menon mrtura paralabe±n). The structure
proelqe±n kaª . . . katacaqai is like IV.2 poreÅeqai kaª . . . jkein,
VII.4 poreuq¦nai kaª juge±n poi¦ai, XI.7 proelqe±n kaª unhq¦nai, XV.7
¤kein . . . kaª lgein.
kaª bya rÅtainan boänto toÓ balanw aÉt¼ aËtoÓ katacaqai:
cf. E. Hec. 609–10 laboÓa teÓco . . . bya ì negke, Antiph. 26.2–4
katakedä . . . tn meg©thn | rÅtainan Ëmän k mou byaa toÓ lb-
hto | zonto Ìdato. For the verb bptein, Bulloch on Call. Lau.Pall. 45,
Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca 61. For rÅtaina, Ginouvès 213–14, Kassel and
Austin on Ar. fr. 450. The balaneÅ ‘bath-keeper’ was owner and manager and
at times attendant (water-pourer in Ar. fr. 450, Pl. R. 344d, and by implication
here), and he was not held in repute (Ar. Eq. 1403, Ra. 710); Ginouvès 212.
To pour one’s own bath water became proverbial for self-help: Ar. Pax 1103
kgÜ ì mautäi balaneÅw, on which Zen. iii.58 (CPG 1.70) paroim©a, o¬oneª
mautäi diakonw. lgetai d Âtan ¾ balaneÆ nwqreÅhtai kaª autäi ti
lambnhi tn rÅtainan kaª diakon¦i.
kaª e«pe±n Âti lloutai † piÜn kke±† : “Lloumai” (Herwerden, already
contemplated by Foss 1834) could be right (direct speech after Âti, II.8n.). If
piÛn is retained, it must be associated with a verb of speech. If it is to be
299
COMMENTARY
associated with e«pe±n, the order e«pe±n Âti lloutai (or “Lloumai”) piÛn
is awkward. We expect, rather, piÜn e«pe±n Âti (Petersen) or e«pe±n piÜn
Âti (Fraenkel and Groeneboom before Pasquali). In the passages cited by
Stein (XX.10 de±xai t¼n pariton aËtoÓ po±» t© ti täi undeipnoÓnti,
XXIII.9 j¦ai taÅthn e²nai tn patrÛian pr¼ t¼n m e«d»ta) the adjunct
has a different semantic connection with the leading verb and comes much
less awkwardly after the subordinated phrase. This difficulty is not solved by
associating piÛn with the later remark: <kaª> piÜn Boissonade, kpeit ì
piÛn Hartung, piÜn d ka© Ussing, kita piÛn Jebb (for kita, IV.7n.),
piÜn <d> Holland 1897. For if the two remarks are simply coordinated
(‘he says . . . and . . .’), there is no obvious point in his making the second
remark, as distinct from the first, ‘as he leaves’. Contrast II.8 e«pe±n Âti “Pr¼
rcetai” kaª natrya Âti “Proggelk e”, where natrya is ne-
cessarily linked to the second remark. A similar objection may be made to
the structure e«pÜn (rather epa, V.2n.) . . . piÜn krage±n (Foss 1858) or
piÜn kak<cz>ein (Immisch 1923, i.e. kac- or kagc-). The latter would
be like §4 gelän palltteqai. But ka(g)czein does not naturally intro-
duce direct speech (on this verb see D. Arnould, Le rire et les larmes dans la
littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon (Paris 1990) 161 –4; add Ariston fr. 14, VIII
Wehrli nakagczein). The remaining conjectures: Âte for Âti Pauw (a tem-
poral clause superfluous in sense and maladroit in expression); (for l- piÜn
kke±) l- peipÜn kke±no (kke±no already Gale) Coray ap. Schneider 1821, l-
pro±ka ka© Usener before Herwerden, “Lloumai kalä” kaª Fraenkel and
Groeneboom (kaª for kke± already Petersen), “Lloutai xion, kkkh” (‘It has
been a cheap wash, you swab’) Bury; (for kke±) kke©nwi Auberius, kke±qen
or kaª ti Needham, “Klei” Pauw (‘clamans me uoca, quousque uelis’; Ast
takes it as ‘summon me to court’, which, as Jebb says, ‘seems a rather cum-
brous joke’), kaª Âti Coray, krzei (krzein needed) Boissonade, kale±n Foss
1834 before Ribbeck 1870, “Kalä” Blaydes, “Kr e² ” Holland 1897, “Kke©-
nou Edmonds 1908, “Kak or Kak¼ e² ” Koujeas, kaª “ ìEke± Navarre 1918, ka©
Pasquali, <d> “Kak©zei;” Steinmetz, kaª “ ìArke± ” (or kaª piÜn “ ìArke± ”)
Ussher (his translation implies *rkei).
“OÉdem©a oi cri”: ‘No thanks (are owed) to you’, so don’t expect
payment; cf. XVII.9 crin ½je©lein Þ hÉergethmnon, Hdt. 5.90.1 taÓta
poiai cri oÉdem©a ja©neto pr¼ ìAqhna©wn, X. Cyr. 3.2.30 oÉdem©an
aÉtäi crin ½je©lomen, D. 16.12 oÉdem©an Ëm±n crin xoui t¦ wthr©a.
Payment is mentioned by Luc. Lex. 2, Ath. 351 f, implied by Ar. Nu. 835–7;
Ginouvès 218.
300
X
THE PENNY-PINCHER
Introductory note
Mikrolog©a, with its cognates mikrol»go and mikrologe±qai, is ‘trifle-
counting’, preoccupation with the petty: with unimportant details (Pl. Smp.
210d, R. 486a, Lg. 746e, [Pl.] Hp.Ma. 304b, Lys. 33.3, X. HG 3.1.26) or with
trivial pursuits (Pl. Tht. 175a, Isoc. 13.8, 15.262). It is often associated with
neleuqer©a: Pl. R. 486a, Arist. Metaph. 995 a 10–12, [Arist.] Phgn. 809a 22, VV
1251 b 14 (quoted on def.); see the Introd. Note to XXI ( ìAneleÅqero). And,
like neleuqer©a, it is often applied to meanness with money: Arist. fr. 56
Rose (p. 56 Ross) tän gr pollän, Þ ìAritotlh jh©n, o¬ mn oÉ crän-
tai täi ploÅtwi di mikrolog©an, [D.] (Apollod.) 59.36 polutel d ì §n, o¬
Megare± d ì neleÅqeroi kaª mikrol»goi, Poll. 2.123 mikrol»gon d ë Upere©dh
(fr. 255 Jensen) . . . t¼n e« rgÅrion neleÅqeron, Men. fr. 106.5–6 apr¼
gr §n, Æ d mikrol»go <-ù> oÉ qlwn | kain pr©aqai, Ephipp. 15.10 Þ
mikrol»go e². : : Æ d ge l©an polutel, Ath. 44b FÅlarc» jhi (FGrH 81 f
13) . . . toÆ ï Ibhra pnta Ëdropote±n ka©toi plouiwttou nqrÛpwn
Ànta, monoite±n te aÉtoÆ eª lgei di mikrolog©an, q¦ta d jore±n
poluteletta, D.L. 4.50 (Bion) pr¼ ploÅion mikrol»gon, “oÉc oÕto,”
jh, “tn oÉ©an kkthtai, ll ì ¡ oÉ©a toÓton.” lege toÆ mikrol»gou
tän mn Ëparc»ntwn Þ «d©wn pimele±qai, Þ d ì x llotr©wn mhdn
Ýjele±qai.
The Mikrol»go exemplifies this narrower use. He is comparable to the
persons whom Aristotle calls k©mbix (‘skinflint’) and kuminopr©th (§13n.). In
EN 1119b 27ff. Aristotle says that neleuqer©a has two sides, ‘deficiency in giv-
ing’ and ‘excess in getting’. Those who exceed in getting are a«crokerde±.
Those who are deficient in giving are jeidwlo©, gl©croi, k©mbike (1121 b 22),
and those who are excessively reluctant to give anything at all have names like
kuminopr©tai (1121 b 26–8). In EE 1232 a 14 the k©mbix is described as fussing
over trifles (j»dra perª mikr diatein»meno). In [Arist.] VV 1251 b 9 (quoted on
def.) his expenditure is small-scale (kat mikr»n). [Arist.] MM 1192 a 8–9 com-
bines (as representatives of neleuqeri»th) k©mbika . . . kaª kuminopr©ta
kaª a«crokerde± kaª mikrol»gou. Cf. Konstantakos 135–6.
The Mikrol»go is mean and petty. His motive is not greed, and he does
not wish to profit at the expense of others, like the A«crokerd (XXX). He
is afraid that others will take advantage of him, and is obsessed with keeping
what is his own; and others pay the price for his petty economies and his jealous
insistence on his rights.
301
COMMENTARY
[1 ] Definition
The sketch illustrates more than ‘sparing of expense’ (Introd. Note ad fin.).
Stein plausibly suggests that the author had an eye on [Arist.] VV 1251 b 7–15,
where all the words in the definition (or their equivalent) are found within a
short compass: jeidwl©a d kaq ì ¥n dpanoi g©nontai tän crhmtwn e« t¼
don· kimbik©a d kaq ì ¥n dapanäi mn, kat mikr¼n d kaª kakä, kaª ple©w
blptontai täi m kat kair¼n proqai t¼ dijoron. . . . kolouqe± d t¦i
neleuqer©ai mikrolog©a.
toÓ diaj»rou: either ‘expenditure’ ([Arist.] VV 1250b 27, 1251 a 34, 1251 b 10,
plural t dijora D. 32.18; LSJ ii.4.a) or ‘ready money, cash’ (inscriptions
from 3rd cent. onwards; LSJ ii.4.b). Cf. Wendland 115, Korver, Crediet-Wezen
67–72.
2 n täi mhnª ¡miwblion paite±n † pª tn o«k©an† : he demands back half
an obol ‘in or within the month’, presumably as payment of interest (interest is
object of paite±n at XII.11, XVIII.5). It was customary to calculate interest
monthly (Ar. Nu. 756, D. 37.5, 53.13, Aeschin. 3.104; monthly accounting,
Hyp. Ath. 19; Millett, Lending and Borrowing 103), and to collect it either monthly
(Ar. Nu. 17–18) or annually (D. 50.61). A normal rate of interest would be 1 %
per month (Millett 92, 104–8). At this rate, monthly interest of half an obol
represents a modest loan of 50 obols. But he is asking for his interest ‘(with)in the
month’. If he is pestering his debtor before the monthly payment is due, he is
going beyond his legal right, and this is out of character. Perhaps he has made
a short-term loan, of less than a month’s duration. Short-term loans might
attract much heavier interest. The ìAponenohmno (VI.9) charges one and a
half obols to the drachma (25%) per day. Alternatively, whatever the duration
of the loan, he has stipulated repayment of half an obol ‘within the month’, i.e.
by the end of the month in which the loan was made. This use of n accords with
And. 1.83 (a decree) paradid»ntwn . . . n täide täi mhn© (‘they are to deliver
this month’), IG xii.7 69.19 repayment of capital n trimnwi, SIG 3 955.17–18
repayment n x mh©n (both from Amorgos, iv/iii bc); cf. LSJ n a.iv.2, KG
1.464, Schwyzer 2.458. In the contracts cited by Stein payment is required
in a named month. This is regular (another instance which comes to hand is
IG xii.7 67.6 (iv/iii bc?), repayment n mhnª ì Iobacc©wi). But this is not the
same as payment ‘in the (unspecified) month’. At all events, the nature of his
mikrolog©a is clear: he takes the trouble (perhaps makes a special journey) to
collect a paltry sum. Emendation is unwise: n twi dane©hi Herwerden, ktwi
mhn© Cobet 1874, ktwi mhn© Blaydes. For the spelling ¡miwblion, VI.9n.
Either the words pª tn o«k©an are corrupt or something is missing. Stein
(following Holland 1897) explains them as a stipulation in the contract (hence
302
X : T H E P E N N Y- P I N C H E R
Rusten, ‘stipulates the repayment of a half-cent “within the month, to his

house”’), adducing contracts from Ptolemaic Egypt which stipulate the return
of borrowed items (but not money) to the lender’s house (H.-A. Rupprecht,
Untersuchungen zum Darlehen im Recht der graeco-aegyptischen Papyri der Ptolemäerzeit
(Munich 1967) 67–8). It is unsafe to use papyri as evidence for institutions of
mainland Greece (Millett, Lending and Borrowing 253 n. 44). Even if we allow
(for the sake of argument) that an Athenian might contract for the return of
money (as opposed to borrowed items) ‘to his house’, there will be an awkward
brachylogy, inadequately supported by VI.9 toÆ t»kou . . . e« tn gnqon
klgein, Timocl. 11.4 ÝyÛnei par ì aËt¼n o«kde (which are much easier)
and V.8 gorzein . . . xnoi . . . e« Buzntion (where I look for a different
construction). The most plausible solution is <lqÜn> (c) pª tn o«k©an (like
IX.7 pª tn llotr©an o«k©an lqÜn dane©zeqai), which adds a telling detail
(a special journey to collect a trifle). With pª t¦i o«k©ai (Casaubon) the half obol
becomes the small amount by which rent ‘for the house’ has been underpaid,
an idea not easy to extract from the words. The rearrangement . . . paite±n pª
t¦i o«k©ai uitän kaª riqme±n ktl. (Coray; J. M. Gesner had proposed . . .
pª tn o«k©an <tän> u©twn ka©) reads awkwardly. pitok©an (Unger
1886) gives an odd expression (‘to demand half an obol as compound interest’) and
disastrously anticipates the mention of compound interest at §10. dapann e«
tn o«k©an (Petersen) gives reasonable sense, ‘to spend half an obol on (the
upkeep of) the house’, but does not suit n täi mhn© (we should expect toÓ
mhn» ‘monthly’).
3–4 The first part (§3) presupposes a de±pnon p¼ umbolän (LSJ umbol
iv.a, Mau, ‘Convivium’, RE iv.1 (1900) 1202, Müri, ‘umbol’, RE iv.1 a (1931)
1090, Gow on Macho 44–5 and 315, Arnott on Alex. 15). The Mikrol»go
counts how many cups of wine each guest has drunk, so that he will not be
charged for more than his own share. For niggardly behaviour in a similar
setting cf. XXX.18. The second part (§4), which is lacunose, suits the same
situation: when the person who has bought the food and drink is settling the
accounts, the Mikrol»go claims that he paid too much for items which in
fact he bought cheaply. In Ephipp. 15 one character urges another to buy
economically for dinner. In Alex. 15 a guest disputes the accounts with the
buyer. It is possible, however, to explain §4 in other terms: the Mikrol»go
disputes the account with an agent who has made purchases for him, much as
in [Arist.] Oec. 1352 b 4–8 pote©la t tina p ì g»ram ti kaª a«q»meno
Âti eÉÛnwn pitetÅchken, aÉtäi d mllei ktetimhmna log©zeqai, pr¼
toÆ unqei toÓ goratoÓ legen Âti khkoÜ eh t gormata aÉt¼n
Ëpert©mia goraknai· aÉt¼ oÔn oÉ proxein. See Millett, ‘Sale, credit and
exchange’ 188.
303
COMMENTARY
3 kaª [¾] u itän riqme±n t kÅlika p»a kato ppwke: the
unwanted article may be a casual intrusion (IV.10n.) or the vestige of an
intrusive o³o (§6). It does not point to ¾moitän (Dietrich ap. Holland 1897),
which substitutes a non-Attic verb (Hdt. 1.146.3, ¾m»ito 7.119.3; the latter
deliberately avoided in the formulaic Åitoi kaª ¾m»pondoi, Aeschin. 2.55,
163) for a verb which is particularly apt. uite±n denotes communal dining
of a formal or official kind, most often by soldiers, but also by ambassadors
(Aeschin. 2 passim), magistrates (Arist. Pol. 1317 b 38), ephebes ([Arist.] Ath. 42.3),
Prytaneis (Ath. 43.3), prisoners (Din. 2.9), religious associations (SEG 32 (1982)
505, Thespiae c. 300 bc; cf. P. Roesch, Études Béotiennes (Paris 1982) 142–6). It is
to be distinguished from the non-specific undeipne±n which follows. The singu-
lar verb usually takes a dative (Ar. Eq. 1325, Lys. 13.79, Aeschin. 2.20, 97, Din.
2.9), or a dat. is readily understood from the context (D. 19.191, Aeschin. 3.52).
Here there is no dat., and it is not clear, until the end of the sentence, who are
the communal diners. But the bare uitän is unexceptionable: it indicates
the type of activity on which he is engaged, as bare introductory participles
often do (VII.8n.). Conjecture is needless: u©twn Sylburg (<tän> - Coray,
after J. M. Gesner); xnou tiän (Naber), eliminating the apt verb; -itän
< ìArtemiiata±> (Holland 1897), undesirably anticipating t¦i ìArtmidi,
and <wthriata± kunhgo±> (Wachsmuth ap. Immisch 1923). For these
names see below on prceqai . . . t¦i ìArtmidi. We must replace te kÅlika
(AB) with t k- (ac), not because te is almost foreign to this work (def. VI n.)
but because sense requires the article.
kaª prceqai lciton t¦i ìArtmidi tän undeipnoÅntwn: the verb
prceqai denotes a preliminary offering made before the meal begins: e.g.
X. Hier. 4.2 (suspicious tyrants) toÅtwn prªn prceqai to± qeo± toÆ
diak»nou präton keleÅouin pogeÅeqai (LSJ ii.2); Stengel, ‘ ìAparca©’,
RE i.2 (1894) 2666–8, Burkert, Homo Necans 6, Greek Religion 66–8, Structure and
History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley etc. 1979) 52–4, Olson on Ar. Pax
1056. That the preliminary offering is made to Artemis (rather than the gods in
general or those commonly associated with feasts and symposia) suggests that
this is a private religious association, or dining- and drinking-club, under the
patronage of Artemis. For associations connected with Artemis, including so-
called ìArtemiiata© and wthriata©, E. Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen
(Leipzig 1896) 34–5, F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig
1909) 188, Parker, Athenian Religion 339–40, 342. The dekadita© (XXVII.11)
are comparable. With lciton . . . tän undeipnoÅntwn cf. XXX.7 lcita
pitdeia tän llwn, KG 1.22–4.
4 kaª Âa mikroÓ ti primeno log©zetai pnta < > jkwn e²nai:
log©zetai is transitive (sharing Âa as object with primeno), ‘calculates the
charge for’ (cf. LSJ i.1, 3); in XIV.2, XXIV.12 intransitive, ‘do the accounts’.
304
Probably an expression indicating dearness has dropped out, as well as an

infin., unless jkwn should be changed to jkein (e, Stephanus). Not e²nai
<gan> (ed. pr.); nor e²nai <peri> (Kayser), which means ‘superfluous’
rather than ‘expensive’; much less peritt in place of pnta (Diels), which is
the natural correlative of Âa (e.g. CP 5.6.10, Hdt 8.35.1, Th. 2.47.4, X. Cyr.
8.6.10, D. 18.26) and particularly apt here (he objects to the cost of every single
item, like the diner in Alex. 15). pnta <t©mia> (Herwerden) jkein e²nai
will do well enough (LSJ t©mio ii.2). Among the more elaborate supplements
are e²nai <t©mia lttw kaqitnai tn timn> (Meister ap. Holland 1897),
log©zetai <aÉtäi, podokimai to± ll»tria dapanäi> pnta jkwn
<ßnia> e²nai (<ßnia> Unger 1886, the rest Edmonds 1929; for the dative
with log©zetai, LSJ i.3; podokimzein, IV.10, VI.5, 9). Fair sense is given by
pnta jkwn e²nai <timiÛtera (or Ëpert©mia) podokimzein> (Stein, mis-
reported by Rusten), though a likelier order may be pnta <podokimzein
timiÛtera> jkwn e²nai, with infin. followed by participial phrase, as XVI.7
kaqrai . . . jkwn . . . gegonnai, XXIV.5 x»mnuqai . . . oÉ jkwn
colzein, XXX.9 pait¦ai . . . e²nai ja.
5 kaª o«ktou cÅtran [e²nai] £ lopda katxanto e«prxai p¼ tän

pithde©wn: a master complains of a trÅblion broken by a slave in Ar.
Ra. 985–6, a husband of a cÅtra broken by his wife in Th. 403. cÅtra
is an earthenware kettle for heating water or soup: B. A. Sparkes, JHS 82
(1962) 130 and Plate vi.1, B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, The Athenian Agora,
xii: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries BC (Princeton 1970)
224–6 and Plates 93–4, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.48–9, Olson on Ar. Ach.
284. e²nai is probably a dittograph of preceding e²nai. The noun needs no
qualification: tin (Needham) is otiose (VIII.4n.), palain (Petersen) weak,
nhn (Edmonds 1908, cl. Ar. Ra. 985–6 t¼ trÅblion | t¼ perÅinon) impos-
sible (‘year-old’ is a mistranslation, exploded by Stein). e«k¦ (Pauw) would be
oddly placed; £ ka© (Münsterberg 1895) is unappealing. lop is a shallow
earthenware cooking-pot: Sparkes 130–1 and Plate vi.3, Sparkes and Talcott
227–8 and Plate 95, Arnott on Alex. 115.21 –3, Olson and Sens on Archestr.
24.7.
6 kaª t¦ gunaik¼ kbaloÅh tr©calkon: the verb means, as normal, ‘drop’
(XIX.8, Ar. Lys. 156, Th. 401, LSJ iii), not, abnormally, ‘lose’ (Stein), which is
pob- (d). The coin is lost because it has been dropped. The tr©calkon is a
coin worth three calko± (VI.4n.), attested only in IG iv2 109 iii.128, 140, iv2
116.15 (Epidauros iii bc), v.1(1) 1433.33 (Messene c. 100 bc), Vitr. 3.1.7; M. N.
Tod, NC 6 (1946) 50–1.
[o³o] metajrein t keÅh kaª t kl©na kaª t kibwtoÅ: repetition of
o³o is unparalleled and unnecessary. We might replace it with dein» (Blaydes),
305
COMMENTARY
which may legitimately be followed by dein¼ d ka© at §10, as it is at XV.8,

11 and XXIX.5, 6 (VII.6n.). On the other hand, dein¼ d ka© stands without
preceding dein» at VI.5, IX.8, XII.8, XIV.8. Deletion (also Blaydes) is the
likelier solution.
Plural keÅh commonly refer to unspecified household objects or items of
furniture (e.g. HP 2.6.6 t te kl©na kaª tlla keÅh, Pl. R. 373a kl±na©
te . . . kaª trpezai kaª tlla keÅh). Here not ‘furniture’ (Jebb), since it is
one of a trio, with two specific items of furniture, couches and chests, and must
therefore be something equally specific, like ‘utensils’ (‘die Geräte’ Holland,
‘das Geschirr’ Stein, ‘pots, pans’ Edmonds, ‘the dishes’ Rusten). So Lap. 42
keÅh t pitrpeza, Men. Dysc. 492 (keÅh of a cook), Antiphan. 150.2
(keÅh washed by a trapezopoi»), Luc. Dips. 7, Prom.Es 2, sing. keÓo Ar.
Th. 402, Eub. 30.1 ; and probably X. Oec. 9.15 nom©ai oÔn kleuon . . . tn
guna±ka kaª aÉtn nomojÅlaka tän n t¦i o«k©ai e²nai kaª xetzein d, Âtan
d»xhi aÉt¦i, t keÅh.
kl±nai are couches for sleeping or dining (Pritchett 226–9, G. M. A. Richter,
The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (London 1966) 52–63). kibwto©
are wooden chests with lids, lockable (XVIII.4), for storing clothes (Ar. V. 1056,
Ath. 84a), money and valuables (Lys. 12.10–11), documents (Ar. Eq. 1000);
Pritchett 220–5, Richter 72–8.
kaª dijn t kallÅmata: the verb means ‘probe, poke into, seek for by
delving’ (LSJ Rev.Suppl., West on Hes. Op. 373–4), equated with yhlajn
by the lexicographers (Apollon. 59.14, Et.Gen. B = EM 279.47), here only in
prose; Headlam on Herod. 3.54, 7.78, Frisk 1.400, Chantraine 287.
kallÅmata ‘sweepings’ is a brilliant conjecture (for kalÅmmata AB), which
appears out of the blue in LSJ9 s.uu. dijw and klluma.60 Its merits have
gone unrecognised (except, implicitly, by West on Hes. Op. 373–4). The word
is attested in only two sources. (i) IG xii.5 593 a.22–3 = SIG 3 1218.22–3 =
F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969) no. 97 (Ceos, late v bc),
where the supplement kallÅ[ma]ta (U. Köhler, MDAI(A) 1 (1876) 144–5)
and its interpretation are certain (Parker, Miasma 35–6). The interpretation
(pon©mmata, lÅmata) proposed by K. Meuli, Phyllobolia für Peter von der Mühll
(Basle 1946) 205 n. 1, is etymologically impossible (the report of this interpre-
tation by Sokolowski and by R. Garland, BICS 36 (1989) 12, is inaccurate).
(ii) Hsch. 221 rmata· kallÅmata. kaª k»pria par ë R©nqwni (fr. 22),
223 arm» · wr¼ g¦. kaª klluma (klumma cod.). Similarly XXII.12 tn
o«k©an kallÓnai ‘sweep the house clean’ (LSJ kallÅnw ii, Phryn. 39.2 tndon
nakllunon; cf. klluntron ‘broom’). Editors continue to interpret kalÅm-
mata (AB) in senses either implausible or unattested (‘curtains’ Jebb, Edmonds,
60 I take kal(l)Åmata attested in c (Stefanis (1994a) 78) to be an accident, not a

conjecture.
306
‘floorboards (of the upper storey)’ Studniczka ap. Holland 1897 (followed by
Stein and Rusten), ‘bed-clothes’ Ussher) and less well suited to dijn.61
7 kaª n ti pwl¦i tooÅtou pod»qai ãte m luitele±n täi priamnwi:

he ensures that no-one gets a bargain from him; on the contrary, he charges
more than it was reasonable to charge, so that the buyer with hindsight regrets
his purchase. It is ‘a bad bargain for the buyer’ (Vellacott). Not ‘the buyer will
make nothing by it’ (Edmonds), implying, contrary to reason, that the profit
in a sale should be on the buyer’s side; nor ‘the buyer can’t recover his price
of purchase’ (Rusten), introducing a notion more specific than is warranted by
the Greek. Haggling (cf. XVII.6) is subject to rules of etiquette (Millett, ‘Sale,
credit and exchange’ 193–4). The seller breaches those rules, and the buyer,
through misjudgement or pressing need, agrees to pay over the odds. But there
remains a doubt whether the text is rightly emended: corruption of tooÅtou
(d) to toaÅta (AB) is unexpected. For the contrast between pwle±n and
pod©doqai (‘offer for sale’ and ‘sell’), XV.4, XXX.5, X. Mem. 2.5.5, Smp.
8.21, D. 27.32, Alex. 130.3–4, 133.8; Neil on Ar. Eq. 160–1, P. Chantraine, RPh
14 (1940) 11 –24, F. Pringsheim, The Greek Law of Sale (Weimar 1950) 159.
8 For hostility to trespassers see Men. Dysc. 103ff. Contrast the liberality (admit-
tedly self-interested) of Cimon, whose land was unfenced, Âpw x¦i täi
boulomnwi t¦ ½pÛra polaÅein ([Arist.] Ath. 27.3; cf. Theopomp. FGrH
115 f 89 ap. Ath. 533a). See also Pl. Lg. 844d–845d.
kaª oÉk n ai oÎte ukotrag¦ai k toÓ aËtoÓ kpou: for oÉk n ai,
VI.9n. There is no merit in oÉdna ai (Blaydes). The verb ukotrag¦ai is
found only here and Poll. 6.40, 49; but ukotrag©dh of a miser (di t¼ eÉtel
toÓ brÛmato) Archil. 250, Hippon. 167; ukotrgo Ael. NA 17.31. There
is no need for Óka trug¦ai (Blaydes). Figs are traditionally cheap (Anan. 3),
and the poor man’s fare (Hippon. 26.5, Adesp. Iamb. 46 West, Archestr. 60.15
Olson and Sens (Lloyd-Jones and Parsons, SH 192)). Cf. G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix
von Kolophon (Leipzig and Berlin 1909) 110–12, Pritchett 190–1, Pellegrino 186.
For ai as a correction in e (a AB) see Stefanis (1994a) 101, 119. For the
suggestion that A has k»pou not kpou, Stefanis 66 n. 3.
oÎte la©an £ jo©nika tän camaª peptwk»twn nelqai: for the olive,
Pritchett 183–4. There is no need to write lan; a distinction (Suda E
764) between la©a (tree) and la (olive) is not supported by Attic inscrip-
tions, where both forms are used in both senses (Threatte 1.278, 2.726). The
jo±nix, date-palm (V. Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere (Berlin 8 1911) 270–86,
Dalby 113–14), did not mature or produce edible fruit in Greece (HP 3.3.5,
61 Paul Millett reminds me of the parable of the woman who sweeps out her house to
find a lost drachma (Luke 15.8). Her action is presented as praiseworthy.
307
COMMENTARY
Plu. 723c, Paus. 9.19.8); in villages abroad Xenophon saw ‘dates like those
which may be seen in Greece’ reserved for slaves (An. 2.3.15). Diels’ deletion of £
jo©nika, as the addition of an interpolator living in a country abundant in edible
dates, was short-sighted. The less edible the fruit, the greater the mikrolog©a.
With tän camaª peptwk»twn cf. H. (e.g.) Il. 4.482 camaª pen, Pi. P. 8.93,
N. 4.41, E. Med. 1170, 1256 (conj.), Phaeth. 220, Pl. Euthphr. 14d. There is no
good reason to prefer camaª keimnwn (A). But the two readings might be
explained as alternative glosses on camaipetän (Cobet, cl. Luc. Lex. 13 la©a
camaipete±, Hsch. C 134 camaipete± . . . camaª keimnwi). For the gen. see on
V.9 tän troggÅlwn lhkÅqou.
9 kaª toÆ Ârou d ì pikope±qai ¾hmrai e« diamnouin o¬ aÉto©: bound-

aries, not boundary-stones, as e« diamnouin o¬ aÉto© shows. Boundary-stones
do not change their nature, but rather their position (IG ii2 1165.18–22 = SIG 3
911.18–22 (300–250 bc) o¬ pimelhtaª . . . pikopäntai . . . toÆ Ârou e«
jetkain kat t aÉt). Much less are these the pillars set up on mort-
gaged property (LSJ Âro ii.b; Finley, Studies in Land and Credit, passim, Millett,
‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 176–8, Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law 252–5), as
suggested by (among others) Bodei Giglioni 87–8 (rightly rejected by Stein
and by Millett, Lending and Borrowing 304 n. 12). For encroachment on a neigh-
bour’s land (which might entail the movement of boundary-stones), Pl. Lg.
843c Á d ì n pergzhtai t toÓ ge©tono Ëperba©nwn toÆ Ârou ktl.,
Luc. Nau. 38 Âmoro ¢dh ßn moi xwen toÓ groÓ piba©nwn kat ì ½l©gon
t¼ ew tän Ârwn, Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. Carm. 2.18.23–4. With diam-
nouin o¬ aÉto© cf. Antiph. 229.2–3 diamnein ewq ì eª | t¼ cräma taÉt»,
Alex. 35.3.

Ëperhmer©an prxai kaª t»kon t»kou: the noun Ëperhmer©a connotes
defaulting, failure to meet an agreed date (Poll. 3.85 ¾ . . . oÉk kt©a
kat proqem©an Ëpermero kaª t¼ prgma Ëperhmer©a; cf. Harp. 296.3–6
Dindorf (U 7 Keaney), also (right of) execution of the penalty for defaulting
(D. 30.27, 33.6, seizure of property kat tn Ëperhmer©an or t¦i Ëperhmer©ai),
and, in a more concrete sense, the penalty itself (IG iv2 103.74, 75, 86, 88,
99, Epidaurus iv bc). This concrete sense is appropriate here, since the sec-
ond object of prxai (compound interest) is concrete. For prxai ‘exact’,
LSJ vi. The expression (not elsewhere attested) will mean much the same as
Ëpermeron e«prttein ‘exact (payment/penalty) from an overdue debtor’
(D. 21.11, 45.70). He takes punitive action when the debtor defaults, perhaps
by distraining on his possessions, as the law allows (J. V. A. Fine, Hesperia Suppl.
9 (1951) 85–7, MacDowell on D. 21.81, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 184). For
the legal technicalities of distraint, Harrison 2.244–7, MacDowell, Law 142–5.
308
But, whatever right a creditor might have in law, the execution of that right was
left to him, and it was not easy to recover a debt if the debtor was determined
to avoid payment. Millett illustrates ‘the lengths to which a lender might have
to go in order to recover a bad debt . . ., involving self-help at virtually every
stage’ (Lending and Borrowing 82–4). The process might be protracted, trouble-
some, and finally fruitless. Perhaps what is of interest here is his determination
to pursue defaulters, in spite of these obstacles, when others would regard it as
not worth the effort. Just as he goes out of his way in §2 to collect a trifling sum
as soon as he can, so here he accepts no pleas for deferment (such as we hear
in Ar. Nu. 1138–9, D. 47.49–50). He demands what is rightfully his, because he
is the sort of man who does not allow others to take advantage of him.
Ar. Nu. 1156 t»koi t»kwn, Men. fr. 446 tän t»kwn t»kou, Pl. Lg. 842d
pit»kwn t»kwn, SIG 3 955.15–16 (Amorgos iv/iii bc) are the only references,
before the Roman period, to the charging of compound interest (Korver,
Crediet-Wezen 121 –5, H. Hommel, Gnomon 36 (1964) 616 n. 1, Bogaert, Ban-
ques et banquiers 360–1, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 185, Stein 182, W. Bühler,
Zenobii Athoi Proverbia 5 (Göttingen 1999) 340). If (as this suggests) it was not a
common practice, then here it illustrates the behaviour of a man who is intent
on exacting that little bit more than is normally exacted. Perhaps he charges
defaulters compound interest: ‘[He] is merciless in exacting unpaid debts, on
which he charges compound interest’ (Millett, Lending and Borrowing 185). And
yet Ëperhmer©an and t»kon t»kou, linked by ka©, appear to be parallel and
independent items, not merely a hendiadys, and the former will embrace all
the sanctions available against the defaulter, not compound interest alone. kaª
<kaq ì > Ëperhmer©an (Herwerden, cl. D. 30.27 o«kthn . . . Án labon kat
tn Ëperhmer©an k tän ìAj»bou, with the following kaª implausibly retained),
specifying compound interest as the sole penalty, does not appeal.
11 kaª tiän dhm»ta mikr t kra k»ya paraqe±nai: cf. XXX.2 tiän
rtou ¬kanoÆ m paraqe±nai (for paraqe±nai, Arnott on Alex. 98.2, Olson
and Sens on Archestr. 13.4; see also on XX.4 parakeimnou). Provision of
inadequate fare is characteristic of comic misers: Eup. 156, Antiph. 166.6–8,
Eub. 87, Mnesim. 3, Men. Epit. 139–41, fr. 390, Pl. Aul. 294–7, 371 –87 (I
owe all these to Konstantakos 140). It is labelled mikrolog©a in Luc. JTr. 15.
Entertainment of demesmen was probably a liturgy; cf. Is. 3.80 Qemoj»ria
tin t guna±ka kaª tlla Âa pro¦ke lhitourge±n n täi dmwi,
J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 BC (Oxford 1971) xxiii–iv,
Whitehead, Demes of Attica 152, 251, 344–5, R. Parker, ‘Festivals of the Attic
Demes’, in T. Linders and G. Nordquist (edd.), Gifts to the Gods (Uppsala 1987),
138. There might be as few as 100–200 in a deme (R. G. Osborne, Demos: The
Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge 1985) 42–5, Millett, Lending and Borrowing
140–1), and so dhm»tai will cost much less to entertain than jultai, whose
309
COMMENTARY
entertainment was a liturgy worth boasting of (D. 21.156; Wilson, Khoregia 24);
cf. XXIII.6n., XXV.8n. In Men. Sic. 183–6 (cf. Theoc. 4.20–2) demesmen
take offence at the man who serves them a skinny bullock. V. J. Rosivach, The
System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens (Atlanta 1994) 10 n. 4 and 134,
argues that the Mikrol»go is privately entertaining select demesmen, not
discharging a liturgy for the whole deme, because ‘it is difficult to imagine how
a liturgist would be involved in slicing up and serving the meat at a public
sacrifice’. This is to take k»ya paraqe±nai too literally.
It is unlikely that tiänta dhm»ta (A) points to an original tiän toÅ
(Needham). For, if tiän toÅ is right, A and B have different and unrelated
corruptions. More likely tiän (B) is right, and tiänta dhm»ta is an
anticipatory error (see on V.9 kaª aÉla©an ktl.). The article is present at
XXV.8 toÆ dhm»ta, <toÆ jrtera>, toÆ julta, XXVIII.2 toÆ
dhm»ta (similarly XXIV.9 tiän toÆ j©lou), but is absent at XXX.16
jrtera (<toÆ> jr- Fischer) tiän, and is dispensable (KG 1.604(d) and
the passages cited on XXV.8).
12 kaª ½ywnän mhqn primeno e«elqe±n: for ½ywnän, IX.4n. By denying

himself an Àyon, he condemns himself to dry bread. Cf. Men. fr. 390 jeidwl¼
§n kaª mtrio gorat (Ath. 171 a kloun d kaª goratn t¼n t Àya
ÝnoÅmenon). For the spelling mhqn, II.2n. e«elqe±n ‘go in’ is here equivalent
to ‘return home’, as XVI.10 (contrast XX.2, XXIV.11), Ar. V. 107, Th. 395,
Ra. 981, just as xelqe±n is ‘leave home’ (IX.2n.). There is no lacuna (Holland
1897).
13 kaª pagoreÓai t¦i gunaikª . . . crhnnÅein: for lending of domestic items,

IV.11 n. crhnnÅein is the simplest remedy for crwnnÅein (AB); but perhaps
crhnnÅnai (Navarre 1920) should be preferred (V.10n.). Other proposals: crn
tini Casaubon, crn oÉden© Salmasius (De Usuris Liber (Leiden 1638) 168), crn
mhden© Coray, crn n© Ast, kicrnai Kayser 1860 (before Herwerden 1871 ,
R. Hercher, Hermes 6 (1872) 58, Cobet 1874), cr¦ai Herwerden.
mte la . . . mte llÅcnion mte kÅminon mte ½r©ganon: three of
these four items (lamp-wick is the exception) are for culinary use. For salt
(IX.3n.) in a similar connection, H. Od. 17.455 oÉ Å g ì n x okou äi
pitthi oÉd ì la do©h, [Theoc.] 27.61. For cummin, whose seeds were
used for seasoning, Hehn, Kulturpflanzen (§8n.) 208–10, H. Gossen, ‘Kümmel’,
RE Suppl. viii (1956) 255–8, Olson and Sens on Archestr. 24.3, Dalby 108–9.
The seeds were so small and cheap that ‘cummin-sawing’ was the proverbial
equivalent of cheese-paring (Introd. Note, Gow on Theoc. 10.55, Arnott on
Alex. 253.3). The leaves of ½r©ganon ‘marjoram’ were used for seasoning:
Steier, ‘Origanum’, RE Suppl.vii (1940) 813–18, A. C. Andrews, CPh 56 (1961)
73–82, Arnott on Alex. 132.7, Olson and Sens on Archestr. 36.6, Dalby 207.
310
mte ½l mte tmmata mte qulmata: the three final items are for
religious use.
½la© is barley grain thrown by participants at a sacrifice: P. Stengel, Hermes 29
(1894) 627–9, 38 (1903) 38–45, Opferbräuche der Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin 1910)
13–16, L. Ziehen, ‘Opfer’, RE xviii.1 (1939) 602–3, M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte
der griechischen Religion 1 (Munich 3 1967) 149, W. Burkert, GRBS 7 (1966) 107–8,
Homo Necans 4, Greek Religion 56, Olson on Ar. Pax 948–9. The Attic form is ½l-
(Meisterhans 27); Ionic oÉl- (AB) arose from scribal familiarity with Homer.
tmmata are not garlands (as usually translated) for participants in the
sacrifice, but fillets of wool for the horns of the sacrificial animal, as XXI.7.
The uses of the word are exhaustively documented by J. Servais, AC 36 (1967)
415–56 (this passage 422). For the custom see J. Köchling, De Coronarum apud
Antiquos Vi atque Vsu (Giessen 1914) 42, L. Deubner, ARW 30 (1933) 92, K.
Baus, Der Kranz in Antike und Christentum (Bonn 1940) 14–15, A. Krug, Binden in
der griechischen Kunst: Untersuchungen zur Typologie (6.-1. Jahrh. v. Chr.) (Hösel 1968)
37–41, 125–6, 137, M. Blech, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen (Berlin 1982) 289
n. 93, 304–5, Burkert, Homo Necans 3, Greek Religion 56, F. T. van Straten, Hierà
Kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden etc. 1995) 24,
43–5, 161 –2. Illustration in P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Munich
3
1920) Tafel iii, Fig. 11, Krug (above), Typentafeln i.11, iii.11 e, B. A. Sparkes,
JHS 95 (1975) Plate xva, van Straten Fig. 17, N. Himmelmann, Tieropfer in der
griechischen Kunst (Opladen 1997) Abb. 31, 32, 37.
qulmata are cakes or pellets of barley grain (ljita) treated with wine and
oil (S Ar. Pax 1040, Phryn. PS 74.11 –12 de Borries, Phot. Q 254 Theodoridis
= Suda Q 544 = An.Bachm. i.258.11 –12) or honey (Hsch. Q 852) for scattering
on the sacrificial meats: L. Ziehen, ‘Pelan»’, RE xix.1 (1937) 247–8, ‘Opfer’,
RE xviii.1 (1939) 586, J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec
(Aix-en-Provence 1966) 123–4, van Straten 141 –3, Olson on Ar. Pax 1040. The
regular form qul- (Ar. Pax 1040, Men. Dysc. 440, Pherecr. 28.6, Pl.Com. 188.18,
Telecl. 35) is thrice attributed to Theophrastus (Piet. frr. 2.34, 18.3 Pötscher
= 584a.36, 325 Fortenbaugh; fr. 97.3 Wimmer = 650.31 Fortenbaugh). The
form quhl- (AB) receives little or no support from inscriptional qualmata
(SIG 3 57.38 = F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure (Paris 1955) no. 50,
Miletus v bc), whose form and precise meaning (in spite of Wilamowitz (SPAW
1904, 633–5), Casabona 124, Stein 184–5) remain unclear. Scribal familiarity
with such forms as quhl and quhp»lo (adduced by Stein as further support
for quhlmata) explains the corruption. qul- is reported from b by Stefanis
(1994a) 88.
ll lgein Âti t mikr taÓta poll ti toÓ niautoÓ: cf. ll (. . .)
j¦ai I.4, XVI.9, XXII.6; so lgwn (Kayser) for ll lgein is needless.
toÓ niautoÓ, here ‘in the course of the year’ (KG 1.386–7, Schwyzer 2.113),
is commoner with a numeral in the distributive sense ‘yearly’ (Th. 1.138.5
311
COMMENTARY
projere pentkonta tlanta toÓ niautoÓ, Pl. Criti. 118e, Min. 320c, Is.
5.35, D. 27.9, Hyp. Epit. 18, Arist. HA 542 b 30, [Arist.] Oec. 1352 b 35, Din. 1.43;
cf. VI.9n. t¦ ¡mra).
[14] Epilogue
The Epilogue (deleted by Edmonds 1908) is narrower in focus than the sketch.
It lists personal economies, which do not impinge on others. There is no good
reason to believe (with Diels) that it reworks genuine material (see Stein 186–7).
Features of vocabulary and style common to this and other epilogues are kaª
t¼ Âlon (XXIX), name of character (I, II), plural subject (epil. III n.), tin
with infin. (I, II), pnu (VIII).
kaª t¼ Âlon d . . . tin «de±n: for kaª . . . d (repeated below) in spurious
passages, epil. III n. For t¼ Âlon, I.6n. tin «de±n is like ti qeaqai in
epil. II, ‘one may see’ (not ‘pennypinchers like to see’, Rusten).
t kle± «oumna: the form kle± is first attested in [Arist.] Ath. 44.1 (u.l. in
HA 513 a 1, 516a 28); later it becomes more common than kle±de/-a, likewise
first (unless Aristopho 7.2 is earlier) in Arist. (HA 511 b 35, 513 a 1, 513 b 35, 516a 28,
[Arist.] Phgn. 809b 26, 811 a 5, 6–7, 8, 9). Present «oumna is far more natural,
after eÉrutiÛa, than perfect «wmna (AB).
lttw tän mhrän t ¬mtia: cf. Luc. DMeretr. 14.2 t¼ mikr¼n ke±no
citÛnion t¼ mcri tän mhrän. For lttw ‘too small’, XXIII.9; the turn
of phrase, IV.2 me©zw toÓ pod». For attitudes to short cloaks, IV.4n. mikrän
(AB) is an anticipatory error (see on IV.13 rcwn), aided by the phonetic
likeness of h and i (II.2, XIV.12, XVI.4, XVII.7, XXI.11, XXII.12, XXIII.8,
XXX.14).
mikrän pnu: regular word order in T. (mikr¼ pnu CP 5.14.2, HP 1.9.5,
9.8.3) and elsewhere (LSJ pnu i.1, H. Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early
and Classical Greek (Helsingfors 1954) 62–70, K. J. Dover, CQ 79 (1985) 332–5
= Greek and the Greeks (Oxford 1987) 53–7, S. L. Radt, Mnemosyne 52 (1999)
478–9 = Kleine Schriften (Leiden etc. 2002) 454–5). So not pan©w (Klotz).
n cräi keiromnou: LSJ crÛ i.2 (similarly Hor. Ep. 1.18.7 tonsa cute). This
is the fashion of mourners (X. HG 1.7.8), Spartans (Plu. 52e, Alc. 23.3, Lyc. 16.6,
Luc. Fug. 27), Stoics (Pers. 3.54, Juv. 2.15, Luc. Vit.Auct. 20, Herm. 12), Cynics
(D. L. 6.31), and athletes (Luc. DMeretr. 5.3, Philostr. Her. 10.9). As an economy,
one could let the hair grow long (Ar. Nu. 835–6); here, like cloaks and flasks,
hair is reduced to the minimum. Cf. V.6n.
t¼ mon t¦ ¡mra Ëpoluomnou: to be shoeless (nup»dhto) is often
a mark of poverty, parsimony, asceticism, or laconism (e.g. Ar. Nu. 103, 363,
Lys. 32.16, Pl. Smp. 203d, X. Mem. 1.6.2; A. A. Bryant, HSCPh 10 (1899) 57–9,
O. Lau, Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in der griechisch-römischen Literatur und Kunst
312
(Bonn 1967) 185–7, Stone, Costume 235). But there is more than simple shoe-
lessness here. They dispense with shoes at midday, when it is particularly
uncomfortable to walk barefoot, in order to save shoe leather. They are not
taking their shoes off for an afternoon siesta (Jebb), when comfort, not eco-
nomy, commends bare feet. In any case, shoes were not normally worn indoors
(e.g. Ar. V. 103, 274–5, Au. 492, Ec. 269–71 ; Bryant 59–60). Ëpodoumnou (AB)
‘putting on shoes at midday’ makes no sense. For the acc. t¼ mon t¦ ¡m- (as
XXVI.4), KG 1.314–15, Gow on Theoc. 1.15. So not kat mon (Herwerden).
pr¼ toÆ gnaje± diateinomnou: the noun is spelt kn- at XVIII.6 (prob-
ably interpolated). gn- begins to replace kn- about 400 bc (Meisterhans 74–5,
Threatte 1.560–1). On fulling see H. Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie der
Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern 1 (Leipzig and Berlin 2 1912) 170–
90, C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall, T. I. Williams (edd.), A History of
Technology 2 (Oxford 1956) 214–17, R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology 4
(Leiden 1956) 81 –97, K. D. White, Greek and Roman Technology (London 1984)
39, Olson on Ar. Ach. 845. The father of Theophrastus was said to have been
a fuller (D.L. 5.36). diateinomnou is a blend of ‘asserting strongly, insisting’,
with pr¼ toÆ gnaje± (cf. XXIX.4, LSJ b.2), and ‘striving to ensure’, with
Âpw ktl. (Goodwin §339, KG 2.372–4, S. Amigues, Les subordonnées finales par
OPWS en attique classique (Paris 1977) 22–63; cf. XXI.4, X. An. 7.6.36 Âpw
d ge mhdenª tän ëEllnwn polmioi gnhqe, pn Âon gÜ dunmhn pr¼
Ëm diateinmenon).
g¦n: ‘fuller’s earth’ (LSJ iv; creta fullonia Plin. Nat. 17.46, g¦ mhktr©
Eup. 412, Cephisod. 6, g¦ pluntr© CP 2.4.3, Nicoch. 7), most commonly
‘Kimolian earth’, a whitish clay (calcium montmorillonite,62 or cimolite) from
the island of Kimolos (Lap. 62, Ar. Ra. 713, Dsc. 5.156, Plin. Nat. 35.195–8), but
also kaolin from Samos (Lap. 62–3), gypsum from Tymphaia in Epirus (Lap. 62,
64, Plin. Nat. 35.198), and others; Blümner 176, Singer et al. 215, 355, Forbes
84, R. H. S. Robertson, CR 63 (1949) 51 –2, E. R. Caley and J. F. C. Richards,
Theophrastus on Stones (Columbus 1956) 208–13, D. E. Eichholz, Theophrastus, De
Lapidibus (Oxford 1965) 129, J. F. Healy, Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology
(Oxford 1999) 219–20.
62 Not ‘montmollionite’ (Dover on Ar. Ra. 711 –13).
313
XI
THE REPULSIVE MAN
Introductory note
Bdelur©a (from the same root as bdw) is behaviour which provokes repug-
nance. bdelur»/bdelur©a are common terms of vilification in Aristophanes
and the orators, and are often found in company with words connoting shame-
lessness (naid D. 8.68, 19.175, 21.107, 151, 25.27, [Arist.] Phgn. 810a 33,
na©deia D. 19.206, Ep. 3.18, Aeschin. 1.189, na©cunto Ar. Ach. 288, Pax
182 (with Porson’s conjecture), Ra. 465, D. 43.39) and audacity (qraÅ
D. 8.68, 21.2, 98, Aeschin. 1.189, tolmhr» Ar. Pax 182, Ra. 465). The Bdelur»
is in this mould: indecent (§2), disruptive, (§3), crude (§3), discourteous (§4),
over-familiar (§5), tactless (§7), tasteless (§8), and tiresome (§9).
[1 ] Definition
OÉ calep¼n . . . dior©aqai: def. VII n. This is a long-winded expression.
paidi pijan kaª pone©dito: paidi is too mild; better paideu©a
(Herwerden), which would tally with maq©a in def. IV; na©deia (Diels
1883 before Naber, to whom Diels 1909 wrongly ascribes priority) leaves
pone©dito otiose. pijan is nearer the mark (he regularly makes a specta-
cle of himself ); n mjane± (Wendland) is no improvement; pijal (Latte ap.
Steinmetz) is unappealing, piman (Herwerden) ruinous. On the inadequacy
of the definition see Stein 189.
2 toioÓt» <ti>: for <ti> (added by Herwerden before Cobet and Diels),
I.2n.
panta gunaixªn leuqrai naurmeno de±xai t¼ a«do±on: ‘“Free”,
“freeborn”, carries a strong emotional charge whenever it is desired to arouse
indignation’ (Dover, Greek Popular Morality 286). For this (of women), Lys. 3.23,
13.66, Pl. Lg. 874c, D. 19.196, 309, Aeschin. 2.4, Hyp. Lyc. 6, Lycurg. 40, Men.
Pk. 375–6, Sam. 577. For naurmeno, VI.2n., XVI.10n. (tejanoÓn toÆ
ëErmajrod©tou ad fin.), Sittl, Gebärden 100.
3 kaª n qetrwi krote±n Âtan o¬ lloi paÅwntai kaª ur©ttein oÍ ¡dw
qewroÓin o¬ pollo©: for applause (LSJ krotw ii.2) and hissing, Sittl, Gebärden
10–11, 55–6, 64, Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 272–3, Csapo and Slater 290. Sim-
ilar exhibitionism: XIX.9, Ar. V. 1314–15 o¬ d ì nekr»than, pln ge Qou-
jrtou m»nou· | oÕto d diemÅllainen, Þ d dexi».
314
XI: THE REPULSIVE MAN
The present subjunctive paÅwntai indicates a state of cessation. This aspect

of the present can be seen in the infin.: HP 9.11.6 paÅeqai main»menon,
[A.] PV 11 jilanqrÛpou . . . paÅeqai tr»pou, Hdt. 1.94.3 oÉ paÅeqai
(sc. itode©hn), Th. 3.40.4 paÅeqai t¦ rc¦, Pl. Smp. 185d n . . . oi
qlhi pneutª conti polÆn cr»non paÅeqai ¡ lÅgx (contrast preceding
paÓa© me t¦ lugg»), Isoc. 4.5 cr paÅeqai lgonta, [Arist.] Aud. 802 a 41
paÅeqai umba©nei t¼n §con. So, with present subj., [Pl.] Epin. 978d l©ttwn
d taÓta aÉt Âtan m paÅhtai poll mn nÅkta, poll d ¡mra,
X. Lac. 14.4 poudak»ta Þ mhdpote paÅwntai rm»zonte, D. 25.13 n
poll toiaÓta poi¦i kaª m paÅhtai, Hyp. Phil. 12 n m paÅhtai t yeud¦
marturän. For Âtan with present subj., V.7, VII.10, XXII.6, XXVI.4. Aorist
subj. paÅwntai (Schneider) denotes ‘when they have ceased’: CP 3.15.1, HP
3.8.7, 9.1.1, Sud. 25, 26, Vent. 18, Hdt. 4.111.2 (pen), Pl. R. 583e, Arist. EE
1243 b 19, HA 576a 4, Metaph. 1047 a 3, Ph. 228a 16, 267 a 1, 6, [Arist.] Pr. 868a 15
(conj.), 23, 868b 19, 938a 30. For Âtan with aorist subj., Âtan iwphi imme-
diately below, IV.5, VII.4, XVI.11, XXII.8, XXIV.8 (II.4n. pn paÅhtai).
This sense is inferior. The aorist implies that he applauds as soon as the others
stop; the present, more appropriately, that he applauds in the intervals between
their applause. See also KG 1.185–6, Goodwin §§87–93.
For omission of the article with n qetrwi, IV.2n. (contrast II.11, XIV.4 n
täi q-); omission of antecedent to oÌ, V.3n. For qewre±n, IV.5n. Although o¬
loipo© (AB2s ) is an unimaginative variation on preceding o¬ lloi, it may be
right.
kaª Âtan iwphi t¼ qatron nakÅya ruge±n, ¯na toÆ kaqhmnou
poihi metatraj¦nai: he lifts his head up (II.10n., XXV.2n.), to make the
belch more audible. Cf. XIX.5 proeruggnein, Cic. Phil. 2.63 in coetu uero
populi Romani negotium publicum gerens, magister equitum, cui ructare turpe esset . . . . o¬
kaqmenoi is a regular expression, designating spectators in the theatre (Hege-
sipp.Com. 1.29), members of the Ecclesia (Ar. Pax 932, Ec. 94, D. 6.3, 8.30),
jurors in court (XXIX.5 (conj.), And. 1.139, D. 58.25), or some other official
body (Th. 5.85). prokaq- (Fraenkel and Groeneboom) is pedantic. Between
poihi metatraj¦nai (B) and m- p- (A) there is nothing to choose (II.3n.).
4 kaª plhqoÅh t¦ gor: this often indicates the time of day (‘forenoon’,
LSJ gor iv; Millett, ‘Encounters in the Agora’ 211 –12), but here it adds a
further important detail. Because the market-place is full there will be other
customers. By staying to eat his fruit at the counter he deprives them of room.
By diverting the shopkeeper with idle chatter he deprives them of his attention.
proelqÜn pr¼ t krua £ t mÅrta £ t kr»drua: ‘to the shops
selling . . .’ (II.7n.). Athenian myrtleberries, highly esteemed (Antiph. 177.4,
Phoenicid. 2.1 ; cf. CP 3.17.7, Ar. fr. 581.5, Eub. 74.5; Pellegrino 187–8,
315
COMMENTARY
Dalby 227), are listed among tragmata / trwglia (they are treated as
such here) by Pl. R. 372c, Diph. 80.1, Theopomp.Com. 68.
kr»drua are properly (i) fruits grown on the branches of trees (not ‘on
upper branches’ (LSJ) but ‘on outer surfaces’, i.e. branches as opposed to stem
or trunk: Hes. Op. 232–3 drÓ | krh mn te jrei balnou, mh d mel©a,
with West ad loc.) and (ii) the trees which bear them. Towards further defin-
ing the range of this word, lexica (ancient and modern) give limited help. I
begin with fourth-century writers. Pl. Criti. 115b (the earliest attested use) and
D. 53.15 tell us nothing. HP 2.5.7 distinguishes kr»drua (suited to foothills)
from olives, figs, and vines (suited to low ground). It follows that 4.4.11
mpelon . . . kaª lan kaª t lla kr»drua does not mean (what LSJ
take it to mean) ‘vine and olive and the other kr»drua (beside vine and
olive)’ but ‘vine and olive and kr»drua as well’ (KG 1.275, LSJ llo ii.8,
Bruhn, Anhang §182). The passage is interpreted rightly by S. Amigues (Budé
ed., 1989), ‘ainsi que les arbres fruitiers’, wrongly by A. F. Hort (Loeb ed.,
1916), ‘the other fruit-trees’, and Gow on Theoc. 15.112. And it follows that
4.7.8 mplou kaª tlla kr»drua kaª uk does not include vines and figs
among kr»drua (again Amigues is right, Hort wrong). Similarly (I assume)
X. Oec. 19.12 ‘vines . . . figs . . . kaª tlla kr»drua pnta’. CP 6.11.2 distin-
guishes kr»drua from figs (tän krodrÅwn kaª Åkwn), as do Pl. Lg. 844d–e,
[Arist.] Pr. 930a 9, 930b 20, who class figs as ½pÛra (for the distinction between
½pÛra and kr»drua see below). These passages tell us what kr»drua are
not: they are not grapes, olives, figs. Od. 5 tän krodrÅwn kaª p©wn kaª
mlwn suggests that they are not pears and apples either. Here Hort (Loeb
ed., 1926) translates kr»drua as ‘stone-fruits’ (‘apparently plums, peaches,
etc.’). I see no warrant for this distinction. Olives, which are not kr»drua,
have stones. But the reverse of Od. 5 is suggested by HP 2.5.7 (cited above),
where olives, figs, and vines, distinguished from kr»drua, appear to be dis-
tinguished from all the fruit trees mentioned just before, and these are apple,
pear, pomegranate, myrtle, and almond.
Arist. HA 606b 2 (similarly Hp. Aff. 61 (6.268 Littré)) distinguishes between
kr»drua and ½pÛra. Grapes, olives, and figs count as ½pÛra. Later writers
distinguish ½pÛra from kr»drua in respect of outer covering, the former
soft, the latter hard: Gp. (10th cent.) 10.74 (p. 309 Beckh) ½pÛra lgetai
¡ cloÛdh t¼n karp¼n coua, o³on dwrakin m¦la pp©dia damakhn
(peaches, apples, pears, damsons) kaª Âa m cei xwqn ti xuläde. kr»-
drua d kale±tai Âa xwqen klujo cei, o³on çoiaª (L: çoi cett., Beckh)
pitkia ktana (pomegranates, pistachio nuts, chestnuts) kaª Âa xulÛdh
t¼n karp¼n xwqen cei, An.Ox. 3.357 (scholia on Tzetzes) ìOrjeÆ (282 Kern)
kr»drua pan ½pÛran kale±· Galhn¼ d kaª o¬ jutourgik untaxmenoi
kr»dru jai t kphn conta, o³on çoi krua mugdla kaª e ti
Âmoion (pomegranates, nuts, almonds etc.), ½pÛra d t kep¦ Þ m¦la
316
p©ou kaª t Âmoia (apples, pears etc.). These writers do not class apples and
pears as kr»drua. Others do (Plu. 683c, Art. 24.1, Ath. 24f–25a).63 In fact,
lexica and scholia define kr»drua as all tree fruits (e.g. EM 288.25 pant¼
jutoÓ karp¼n dÛdimon, Suda A 1001 pnte o¬ tän dndrwn karpo©, S H.
Od. 14.12 tän pntwn dndrwn o¬ karpo©, Phryn. PS 36.14–15 de Borries,
Phot. A 855 Theodoridis). Even ½pÛra came to be applied to each and every
kind of fruit (Hsch. O 1077 ½pÛra· . . . kur©w d ¡ tajul, katacrhtikä
d kaª pª tän llwn krodrÅwn; similarly An.Ox. 3.357 (cited above) ìOrjeÆ
kr»drua pan ½pÛran kale±; Hp. Vict. 55 (6.562–4 Littré) counts nuts as
½pÛra). From none of these later uses do we learn anything germane to the
definition of kr»drua in Theophrastus.
t krua . . . £ t kr»drua means ‘nuts . . . or kr»drua generally’, and
is comparable to expressions like Ar. Nu. 413 n ìAqhna©oi kaª to± í Ellhi
(KG 2.247, W. J. Verdenius, Mnemosyne 7 (1954) 38); similarly Ar. fr. 581.1
ikuoÅ, b»tru, ½pÛran (needlessly doubted; cf. Pellegrino 180–1), ‘cucum-
bers, grapes, ½pÛra in general’. Nuts are only one member of the class of
kr»drua, however we define that class. The notion that krua and kr»-
drua are synonymous is a fallacy, encouraged by too casual a reading of Ath.
52a. Athenaeus says that Attic writers and others used the name kruon for all
kr»drua (o¬ ìAttikoª kaª o¬ lloi uggraje± koinä pnta t kr»drua
krua lgouin), but that Epicharmus (fr. 148) used it only for the walnut. The
second part of this shows that by kr»drua he means ‘kr»drua qua nuts’.
Schweighäuser’s supplement t kr»drua <Âa xuläde lpo couin>
gets the right idea (cf. GP 10.74 cited above, S Nic. Alex. 99e (p. 62 Geymonat)
pnta t kelÅjh tän krodrÅwn krua lgetai), but is unnecessary. So
deletion of £ t kr»drua as a gloss on t krua (Ruge and Immisch 1897,
also A. Peretti, SIFC 9 (1931) 189–91) or of t krua as a gloss on t kr»drua
(Edmonds 1929) is misguided; as is t <lla> kr»drua (Edmonds 1929),
an expression which T. uses (as shown above) in company only with trees or
fruits which are not kr»drua.
thkÜ traghmat©zeqai ma täi pwloÓnti prolalän: tragmata
(also called trwglia) are foods that can be nibbled, such as fruits, normally
as a dessert (Arnott on Alex. 168.2, Olson on Ar. Pax 771 –2, Olson and Sens on
Matro 1.111 and Archestr. 60.6, Dalby 330). We need not suppose that (like the
ìAna©cunto at IX.4) he has pilfered them. For thkÛ cf. IX.4; prolalän,
Introd. Note to VII.
5 kaª kalai d tän pari»ntwn ½nomat© tina: I assume that we have finished
with the shop and that a new scene begins here. pari»ntwn (de) is more
63 For Athenaeus kr»drua include plum and damson (49d–e), sloe (49f), mulberry
(51 d), and quince (81 a).
317
COMMENTARY
pointed than par»ntwn (AB). He calls out the name of a passer-by rather than
addresses by name someone who is present in the shop. The next sentence
follows naturally from this. The people whom he sees (note ¾rän) eagerly
making for some destination are likely to be in the street. Cf. Call. Del. 224
ìAter©h d ì ½nomatª parercomnhn kleen, and (for kalai . . . ½nomat©)
Hdt. 3.14.7, X. An. 7.4.15, Cyr. 4.1.3, D. 21. 206, [Arist.] Mir. 841 b 20, Call. fr.
43.79, Arat. 374.
6 kaª peÅdonta d poi ¾rän < . . .: the sentence is more likely to be

lacunose (d) than interpolated (Sakolowski). If he is playing a practical joke,
the supplement <perime±nai keleÓai> (d) does not fully bring this out. Jebb
detects a motif from comedy, and compares Ter. Ph. 847–8 heus Geta! :: em tibi: |
num mirum aut nouomst reuocari, cursum quom institeris? (cf. 195, Ad. 320); but these
involve slaves. For peÅdonta . . . ¾rän, XXV.4 ¾rän p©ptonta (article
omitted with plural part., VI.2–3n.); for poi (pou AB), Pl. Euthphr. 15e nÓn gr
peÅdw poi (pou Tac ); the corruption, XIII.6, XXIII.3. See also XXIV.10n.
7 kaª ¡tthmnwi d meglhn d©khn pi»nti p¼ toÓ dikathr©ou proelqe±n

kaª unhq¦nai: cf. D. 21.88 meglhn . . . åjle d©khn. For omission of article
with singular part., II.2n.; for the perfect (Schneider: ¡ttwmnwi AB), I.2n.
proelqÜn unhq¦nai (Cobet 1874), favoured by Stein and Rusten, is shown
to be unnecessary by the passages cited on IX.8. Cf. XX.4n.
8 kaª ½ywne±n autäi kaª aÉlhtr©da miqoÓqai: for ½ywne±n, IX.4n. autäi
(I.2n.) is a sufficient correction of aut»n (AB) and need not be embellished
with <aÉt¼> autäi (Herwerden before Cobet 1874). Least of all do we
want the supplement of B. Hemmerdinger, BollClas 13 (1992) 125–6. Same
construction and corruption at V.8 gorzein aËtäi (aÉt»n AB); cf. Ar. Ec. 226
aËta± paroywnoÓin. The meaning is ‘buy Àya for himself’, not ‘do his own
marketing’ (Jebb), which would require aÉt» (Furlanus) or d aÉt» (Ruge).
He exhibits bdelur©a not by doing his own shopping (IX.4n.), as Jebb supposes
(Jebb would never be seen carrying a parcel in the streets of Cambridge),64
but by what he does next. He proposes to enliven the meal which he has
bought for himself by hiring girl pipers, and then he has the bad taste to show
the food to strangers in the street and invite them to share the meal (and by
implication the girls). The aÉlhtr© provided more than music, as can be
seen from XX.10 (hired from a pornobok»), Metag. 4.3–4 aÉlhtr©da, a¯
te tcita | ndrän jorthgän Ëp¼ goÅnata miqoÓ luan, Men. Pk. 340
oÉ [gr Þ aÉ]l[htr]ª oÉd ì Þ porn©dion triqlion, PCG adesp. 1025.1 n
ta± [tri»]doi oi [pro]gelä[ ì ] aÉlhtr©de, Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 290
64 G. Raverat, Period Piece: A Cambridge Childhood (1952) ch. 5. See below, p. 370.
318
ap. Demetr. Eloc. 240 t n täi Peiraie± aÉlhtr©<d>a 65 kaª t porne±a (cf.
f 213), Isoc. 7.48, Aeschin. 1.42, 75, Phylarch. FGrH 81 f 42, ‘Simon.’ AP 5.159
(Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 3300; Page, Further Greek Epigrams 928), and in
art (M. F. Kilmer, Greek Erotica on Attic Red-Figure Vases (London 1993), Index s.u.
‘flute-girl’). She was in heavy demand, and formerly this raised the going rate
(Pl. Prtg. 347c–d); now the tun»moi controlled the price, and she went for
two drachmas ([Arist.] Ath. 50.2; cf. Hyp. Eux. 3). See also H. Herter, JbAC 3
(1960) 97, C. G. Starr, PP 33 (1978) 401 –10, J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse
(New York and Oxford 2 1991) 183, J. N. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The
Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (London 1997) 81 –2, A. J. Graham, JHS 118
(1998) 39, Huß on X. Smp. 2.1, Olson and Sens on Matro 6.2, Kapparis on [D.]
(Apollod.) 59.24. To change aÉlhtr©da to aÉlhtr©da (Cobet 1874), because
they usually perform singly (XIX.9, XX.10, Ar. V. 1219, 1368, Ra. 513, Pl. Smp.
176e X. Smp. 2.1, Men. Sam. 730), is naive. The speaker in Men. fr. 224.4 hires
several. Diels needlessly suggests that a different point (that when the guests
arrive he locks them out) has been lost in a lacuna at the end. AB, in fact,
have an abridged version of XXX.5–16 at the end (see the Introduction, p. 41).
But there is no reason to suppose that this has supplanted an original ending.
For a proposal to transfer XIX.7–10 to the end, see Introd. Note to XIX.
kaª deiknÅein d to± pantäi t Ýywnhmna kaª parakale±n pª taÓta:
the infin. form deiknÅein (V.10n.) is well attested in literary texts (X. Cyr. 8.1.21,
D. 2.12, 24.48, 66, 68, Alex. 115.25, [Arist.] Xen. 979a 23, D.S. 4.52.5, Plb.
9.31.6, 10.16.3), but is absent from Attic inscriptions (Threatte 2.621 –3). I see
no fault in parakale±n pª taÓta, an invitation to share the food (taÓta),
which implies an invitation to share the girls too. Emendation has produced
nothing better: ãper kalän Naber, <m> parakale±n nescioquis ap. Ruge;
pª taÅta Schwartz before Wachsmuth ap. Ruge, pª da±ta Navarre 1918,
“ ìEpª taÓta” Edmonds 1926.
9 kaª dihge±qai pro t pr¼ koure±on £ muropÛlion Âti meqÅkeqai

mllei: not prot (AB), which, with pr» and acc., cannot mean ‘as he
stands at the door’ (Jebb), but prot (Schneider, before Ussing and Wend-
land), as Ar. Pax 1183 prot (Lenting: prot codd.) pr¼ t¼n ndrinta,
X. Oec. 10.10 pr¼ . . . t¼n ¬t¼n protan (Schneider: prot- codd.),
Pl.Com. 201.3 pro©tata© mou pr¼ t¼ b¦ma Mant©a; cf. II.8n., VIII.10n.,
XXIII.7n. Both barbers’ shops and perfume-shops were traditional venues
for loungers and gossips. The former, Plu. 679a (cf. 716a) Qe»jrato (fr. 76
Wimmer, 577 Fortenbaugh) oina ump»ia pa©zwn klei t koure±a di
tn lalin tän prokaqiz»ntwn, Lys. 23.3, Ar. Au. 1441, Pl. 338, Eup. 194,
65 My supplement. The form aÉlhtr©a is not justified by the joke in D.L. 7.62. In our
passage, c corrupts aÉlhtr©da to -tr©a.
319
COMMENTARY
Men. Sam. 510, Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 283b, Plb. 3.20.5, Plu. 509a, Nic. 30.1
(F. W. Nicolson, HSCPh 2 (1891) 42–3, Otto, Sprichwörter 350, Wycherley, Agora
iii 205); the latter, Ar. Eq. 1375, Eup. 222, Pherecr. 2, 70.1 –3, Philem. 41.1 –2,
D. 34.13 (Wycherley, Agora iii 202–3, Whitehead on Hyp. Ath. 6); both together,
Lys. 24.20, D. 25.52, Phld. De Ira col. xxi.28–30 p. 47 Wilke (p. 79 Indelli),
Pl. Am. 1011 –13 (Wycherley, Agora iii 185–6). For unspecified rgatria as
places of talk, epil. VI, Isoc. 7.15, 18.9, Hyp. Eux. 21, Antiph. 251, Plu. Nic.
12.1. See further Wycherley, ‘Market of Athens’ 3–4 = Stones of Athens 92,
Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 190, id. ‘Encounters in the Agora’ 225–6,
V. J. Hunter, Policing Athens (Princeton 1994) 98–9, S. Lewis, ‘Barbers’ shops
and perfume shops: “Symposia without wine”’, in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek
World (London and New York 1995) 432–41, ead. News and Society in the Greek
Polis (London 1996) 15–18. For the spelling muropÛlion (not -pwle±on c),66
VI.9n. (for mÅron, IV.2n., V.6n.).
66 And (of d) at least Cantabr. (4 Wilson).
320
XII
T H E TA C T L E S S M A N
Introductory note
*kairo describing a person appears first here (if we discount X. Eq.Mag. 7.6,
‘ill-suited’, with infin.), next in Herod. 6.80 kairon oÉ prpont ì e²nai (‘one
must not be tactless’ Headlam); later instances are cited by Headlam ibid.,
and LSJ Rev.Suppl. kair©a is used of personal behaviour by Pl. Smp. 182a
¾ränte aÉtän tn kair©an kaª dik©an; the converse eÉkair©a by Men. Dysc.
128–9 pr¼ pnta prgmat ì tª praktikÛteron | eÉkair©a (‘tact’ Arnott).
kair©a is not ‘doing a right thing at a wrong moment’ (Ussher, similarly
Ruge) but a failure to do ‘what is proper, appropriate, just right’ (kair», as
defined by Barrett on E. Hi. 386–7; cf. J. R. Wilson, ‘Kairos as “due measure”’,
Glotta 58 (1980) 177–204). The *kairo is a man whose actions do not suit
the circumstances. Whether those actions are good or bad in themselves is
irrelevant. Most are unexceptionable. Timing is not at issue in §10. See further
Stein 191 –2.
[1 ] Definition
p©teuxi <cr»nou>: p©teuxi ‘hitting the mark, attainment’ takes a gen.
in [Pl.] Def. 413c eÉkair©a cr»nou p©teuxi, n æi cr paqe±n ti £ poi¦ai
(Ingenkamp 65), [Arist.] MM 1207 b 16 (tän gaqän), Eudem. fr. 56 Wehrli
(gaqoÓ p©teuxi kaª p»teuxi); cf. Phld. Rh. i.204 col. xxiii.3–5 Sudhaus
eËrei gr e«[]in a¬ kaq ì katon pi[te]Åxei. It is used without gen. in
the sense ‘attainment’ (sc. of success) by App. Pun. 105. Here without gen. it
makes no sense. Not ‘accosting’ (Radermacher), a sense unattested though
conceivable, but here inept. The writer must have added cr»nou, from [Pl.]
Def., where the choice of p©teuxi may have been suggested by the expres-
sion kairoÓ tugcnein (S. El. 31, E. Hec. 593, Pl. Lg. 687a, [Men.] Mon.
394 Jäkel). But the imitation of [Pl.] Def. is maladroit, since p©teuxi cr»-
nou suits negative kair©a less well than positive eÉkair©a. Better p»teuxi
(p- <kairoÓ> Schneider, <kairoÓ> p- N. Festa (SIFC 6 (1898) 470), p-
<cr»nou> Navarre 1920). Other proposals: nteuxi M (def. V n.), conjec-
tured by Reiske 1749 (Briefe 360) and Dobree before Cobet 1874, pitdeui
Darvaris. See further Stein 192–3.
mn oÔn: def. I n.
lupoÓa: cf. Isoc. 1.31 t¼ gr kairon pantacoÓ luphr»n. ‘Pain’ reap-
pears in def. XIX, XX.
321
COMMENTARY
2 coloumnwi proelqÜn nakoinoÓqai: for cole±qai, Arnott on

Alex. 208.1 ; omission of article with singular part. (as §4, §7, §8), II.2n. For
nakoinoÓqai cf. IV.3.
3 kaª pr¼ tn aËtoÓ rwmnhn kwmzein purttouan: an amusing varia-

tion on the motif that women feign illness to put off lovers (Alex. 150.10–11,
McKeown on Ov. Am. 1.8.73–4). For kwmzein pr», Sophil. 5.3–4, Theoc.
3.1 (p© Is. 3.14); for the kämo in general, XXVII.9, Headlam on Herod.
2.34–7, Arnott on Alex. 112.1.
4 kaª d©khn Ýjlhk»ta ggÅh proelqÜn keleÓai aËt¼n nadxaqai: the

man whom he approaches is adjudged to have forfeited a security deposit
(d©khn Ýjlhk»ta ggÅh) because the person for whom he stood surety has
defaulted. A surety (gguht) was required by a non-citizen in both public
and private transactions, in particular to guarantee his appearance in court
(MacDowell, Law 76, 239, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 227–8), and by a
citizen who contracted a debt to the state (MacDowell 167). There is no need
for Ýjlhk»ti (Pauw), since the acc. is appropriately governed by keleÓai,
to which proelqÛn is subordinated, as XIII.7 t¼n trathg¼n proelqÜn
rwt¦ai.
aËt¼n nadxaqai is ‘take him on’, ‘take responsibility for him’, in the sense
‘be surety for him’. The verb has the same sense and construction as gguqai,
and (with ggÅh preceding) is used here for variation. The closest parallel
is Plb. 5.16.8 t¼n d Megalan Le»ntio nedxato tän crhmtwn, ‘L. took
on, guaranteed, M. for the money (required as ggÅh)’, where the gen. is of
the same kind as e.g. Isoc. 17.14 Pa©wn aÉt¼n pt talntwn dihgguato
(KG 1.378 b); F. W. Walbank, Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957)
550–2.
This rare use of the verb (in this specialised sense, with a personal object)
is a natural development from a basic sense ‘accept’, ‘take on’. The follow-
ing uses are relevant (I discard LSJ’s muddled classification):67 (a) ‘accept’,
‘take upon oneself ’, ‘assume responsibility for’ (what is not one’s own), with
(i) impersonal acc., tn a«t©an (‘case’, ‘cause’, Pl. Hp.Mi. 365d; ‘blame’ Men.
Sam. 482), t prxei and t¼n Ëpr tän crhmtwn l»gon (Isoc. 15.129),
faults or crimes (D. 19.36 pnt ì nadec»meno kaª e« aËt¼n poioÅmeno t
toÅtwn martmata, 22.64, Din. 1.3, 106, Hyp. Phil. 10, Dem. 34), expenses
or debts (Hyp. Ath. 6 Âon . . . ½je©louin rgÅrion, 7 t cra, Plb. 21.14.3 tn
¡m©eian . . . t¦ gegenhmnh aÉto± dapnh), (ii) personal acc., Plu. Caes. 11.1
67 A sense not relevant here, missed by LSJ, is ‘take up’ (a speech, after another has
finished), Plb. 18.37.1 nadexmeno . . . jhen.
322
X I I : T H E TA C T L E S S M A N
nadexamnou . . . toÓ Krou toÆ mlita calepoÆ kaª paraittou

tän daneitän (Crassus takes on Caesar’s creditors, accepts responsibil-
ity for paying them); (b) ‘accept’, ‘acknowledge’ (validity, reality), with
(i) impersonal acc., Is. 3.18, D. 46.7 kmartur©an, (ii) personal acc., [D.] (Apol-
lod.) 59.58 t¼n pa±da (not uniquely ‘take back’, as LSJ, Carey, Kapparis),
(iii) infin., D. 24.170 taÓq ì Ëme± nadxeq ì Ëpr Ëmän peprcqai . . .;;
(c) ‘accept’, ‘undertake’, ‘guarantee’ (performance of some activity or fulfilment
of a promise), with (i) acc., S. fr. 314.162–3 Radt ploÓton . . . Án Fo±bo Ëm±n
e²pe k[]nedxato (‘mentioned and guaranteed’), Plb. 4.65.6 tn perª aÉt¼
katakeun . . . to± A«twlo±, 11.25.9 to± tratiÛtai tn tän ½ywn©wn
p»doin, (ii) future infin., Hdt. 5.91.2 Ëpoceir©a parxein t ìAqna, X.
Cyr. 6.1.17, D. 2.7, 33.22, (iii) acc. and fut. infin., X. Cyr. 6.1.45 gÛ oi nad-
comai ¤xein polÆ ìArpou pit»teron j©lon (also 1.6.18), D. 35.7 ¡goÅmeno
poiein aÉtoÆ pnta Âaper Ëpicne±to kaª nedceto Lkrito oËto©
(sc. poiein aÉtoÅ), 8 Lakr©tou toutouª nadecomnou moi pnt ì eqai
t d©kaia par tän deljän tän aËtoÓ (cf. 15), (iv) absolute, Leg.Gort. 9.24,
41 (‘act as a surety’; R. F. Willetts, The Law Code of Gortyn (Berlin 1967) 47,
74), Th. 8.81.3 piteÓai . . . n m»nw ìAqhna©oi, e« ä aÉt¼ katelqÜn
aÉtäi nadxaito (Tissaphernes said that ‘he would only trust the Atheni-
ans if Alcibiades himself were to return safe and be a guarantor for him’, sc.
that the Athenians would behave as desired). Both ndoco and nadoc
are used in this specialised sense: Men. fr. 407 pr¼ tn deljn ndocon
tän crhmtwn (‘guarantor of the money’), Plb. 5.27.4 nadoc (‘guarantee’,
referring to the use of nadxaqai at 5.16.8), Hsch. E 150 ggÅai· a¬ nado-
ca©, Suda E 164 ggÅh· ¡ per© tino nadoc (cf. EM 309.35 gguht · ¾
nadec»meno d©khn), LSJ s.uu.
aËt»n was restored (for aÉt»n AB) by Casaubon (in commentary, not text)
before Needham.
5 kaª marturwn pare±nai toÓ prgmato ¢dh kekrimnou: for pare±nai,

V.3n. prgma ‘business, issue’, often virtually ‘case’ (XIII.3, XXIX.5), is reg-
ular with kr©nein (Antipho 3.d.1, D. 10.49, 21.7, 25.2, 56.48, Aeschin. 1.79, 186,
Hyp. Dem. 2).
A litigant chose his own witnesses. A witness gave evidence before the case
came to court, and then confirmed it in court. His function was to support
the litigant; an absent witness lets the litigant down. See Harrison 2.136–47,
MacDowell, Law 242–7, S. C. Humphreys, ‘Social relations on stage: Witnesses
in classical Athens’, in Humphreys (ed.), The Discourse of Law = History and
Anthropology 1.2 (1985) 313–69, Todd, ‘The purpose of evidence in Athenian
courts’, in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, S. Todd (edd.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law,
Politics and Society (1990) 19–39, C. Carey, G&R 41 (1994) 176, 183–4.
323
COMMENTARY
6 kaª keklhmno e« gmou toÓ gunaike©ou gnou kathgore±n: plural gmoi
of a wedding, as XXII.4, is regular (V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age
(New Haven and London 1984) 28–34). toÓ gunaike©ou gnou is a poetical
expression (A. Th. 188, E. Med. 418, IT 1298, Ph. 356, Mel.Des. 18 Page (TrGFSel
p. 124), fr. 111.1), rare in prose (Pl. R. 455c, 620a). In Luc. Symp. 40 a wedding
guest disparages marriage, and glw pª toÅtoi gneto Þ oÉk n kairäi
legomnoi. Women attended weddings (J. H. Oakley and R. H. Sinos, The
Wedding in Ancient Athens (Wisconsin 1993) 22, A.-M. Vérilhac and C. Vial, Le
mariage grec du VI e siècle av. J.-C. à l’époque d’Auguste (BCH Suppl. 32, 1998) 302).
7 kaª k makr ¾doÓ ¤konta rti parakale±n e« per©paton: rti is regu-
larly placed after the part., e.g. CP 5.13.6 dieblathk»to rti, Isoc. 12.184
tän e«rhmnwn rti, D. 19.1 orak»ta rti, Arist. Pol. 1280a 20 t¼ lecqn
rti, Rh. 1386a 35 t gegon»ta rti.

progein Ýnhtn ple©w did»nta ¢dh peprak»ti: he is acting in
the recognised capacity of go-between or broker: Poll. 7.11 –12 ¾ d to±
piprkoui proxenän proprtwr, Þ De©narco (fr. 34, p. 150 Conomis)
kaª ì Ia±o (fr. 46 Thalheim) erhken· propÛlhn d ì aÉt¼n ìAritojnh (fr.
874; propolae Pl. Aul. 512) kale±, propwloÓnta d Pltwn (Lg. 954a), Lu©a
(fr. 116 Thalheim) d toÅtou . . . proprta . . . lgei. Cf. Millett, ‘Sale,
credit and exchange’ 188 n. 47.
9 kaª khko»ta kaª memaqhk»ta n©taqai x rc¦ didxwn: for the

participles without article (as §11), VI.2–3n. The second part. amplifies the
first (VI.4n.) and casts the hearers in the role of maqhta©, just as didxwn casts
the speaker in the role of didkalo. Cf. koÅein with gen., ‘be a pupil of’
(LSJ ii.4), like audire (LS ii.a.2, OLD 6). From Homer onwards n©taqai is
the regular term for ‘rise to speak’ (XIII.2, XXVIII.5), and in Attic is often
combined with fut. part. (Ar. Th. 384 lxou ì nthn, Pl. Alc.1 106c, 116d,
X. An. 1.3.13, 7.6.8, Cyr. 8.1.6, Isoc. 6.2, D. Prooem. 38.3). These passages show
that didxwn (Coray) for didkwn (AB) is preferable to nat . . . didkein
(Cobet 1874). For the expression x rc¦ didkein, And. 1.8 (bis), 34, Lys.
7.3, 12.3, 32.3, Is. 2.2, 7.4.
10 kaª proqÅmw d pimelhq¦nai m boÅleta© ti genqai a«cÅnetai d

pe©paqai: this could equally be an illustration of perierg©a (XIII). But it is
also kair©a, because such keen concern is not suitable in the circumstances
(given the other’s reluctance); cf. Introd. Note.
With proqÅmw . . . pimelhq¦nai cf. X. Mem. 2.8.6 Þ . . . proqum»-
tata pimele±qai, Cyr. 4.2.37 pimelqhte proqÅmw (also Ar. Nu. 501 £n
324
X I I : T H E TA C T L E S S M A N
pimel å kaª proqÅmw manqnw). pr»qumo (AB) with infin. would be

unique (VI.8n.), and especially displeasing so soon after dein» in §8. The
balanced antithesis and homoeoteleuton boÅleta© ti genqai a«cÅnetai d
pe©paqai, uncharacteristic of Theophrastus, are reminiscent of Gorgias and
the orators. Cf. J. D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (Oxford 1952) 70–3, 135–6.
The first middle aorist pe©paqai is Herodotean (8 instances); in earlier Attic,
only Arist. EN 1163 b 19, [Arist.] Mir. 837 a 12 (di- Arist. EE 1243 a 31, [Arist.] Oec.
1351 b 5); also Call. Dian. 174 p¼ d ì epao. See V.2n., XXIII.4n.
11 kaª qÅonta kaª nal©konta ¤kein t»kon paitwn: it was illegal to

distrain on a defaulting debtor on days of public festival (D. 21.10–11 with
MacDowell ad loc., Millett, Lending and Borrowing 276 n. 46). To disturb a sacrifice
and feast with a demand for payment of interest, while not illegal, is anti-social
(Millett 151).
The second part. amplifies the first (as §9), probably in the sense ‘sacrificing
and spending money (on the sacrifice)’, rather than ‘sacrificing and consum-
ing (the sacrifice)’, as it is taken by Casaubon (and by P. Stengel, Hermes 39
(1904) 616, and Rusten). nal©kein is found without object in the sense ‘spend’
(Th. 7.48.5, 8.45.5, Ar. Pl. 248, Pl. R. 552b); in the sense ‘consume’, only with
object (LSJ i.3, to which add E. Cycl. 308). The expense of a sacrificial animal
and the accompanying feast might be high (IX.3n., XXI.7n.); and expense is
more pertinent than consumption.
With ¤kein t»kon paitwn cf. XVIII.7 Âtan ¤khi ti a«th»meno kpÛ-
mata; double acc. (as here) XVIII.5 toÆ ½je©lonta aËtäi rgÅrion . . .
paite±n toÆ t»kou. So we should resist the temptation to write kaª <pr¼>
q- (like IX.2 pr¼ toÓton panelqÜn dane©zeqai, XVI.6 pr¼ t¼n xhghtn
lqÜn rwtn, XXIV.7 keleÓai ¤kein pr¼ aËt»n), improving on Þ (i.e.
pr») q- (Casaubon).
12 kaª matigoumnou o«ktou paretÜ dihge±qai Âti kaª aËtoÓ pote pa±
oÌtw plhg labÜn pgxato: whipping was the regular punishment for
slaves (G. R. Morrow, Plato’s Law of Slavery in Relation to Greek Law (Urbana
1939) 66–71, V. J. Hunter, Policing Athens (Princeton 1994) 154–73). The expres-
sion plhg lambnein is common: XXVII.9 plhg e«lhjÛ, Th. 5.50.4,
Ar. V. 1298, 1325, Pax 493, Ra. 673, 747, Ec. 324, Cratin. 92, Philyll. 9, Pl.
Hp.Ma. 292c, Mx. 236c, Isoc. 12.212, X. An. 4.6.15, Cyr. 1.3.16, 1.6.29, Lac.
6.2, 9.5, D. 21.1, 6, 37.37, 54.13, 14, 41, Hyp. Epit. 23, Men. Dysc. 205, Sam.
215, Timocl. 24.6, Diph. 42.32, PCG adesp. 1088.6. For aËtoÓ . . . pa±,
XIV.10n.
13 kaª parÜn dia©thi ugkroÅein mjotrwn boulomnwn dialÅeqai: pre-

sumably he acts in an official capacity (V.3n.). Here parÛn indicates only
325
COMMENTARY
attendance, not support, by contrast with V.3 and [D.] (Apollod.) 59.48 (cited
there), where a dative of person expresses the party supported. This leaves it
open whether he has been called as supporter by one party or as the ‘com-
mon’ arbitrator. ugkroÅein is not (uniquely in this connection) absolute (LSJ
i.3); mjotrou is the implied object. For the antithesis with dialÅeqai,
Isoc. 4.134 tooÅtou domen ugkroÅein ti tän ke©nou pragmtwn £ poie±n
taizein ãte kaª t di tÅchn aÉtäi gegenhmna tarac undialÅein
piceiroÓmen, [Men.] Mon. 184 Jäkel dilue, m Ågkroue macomnou
j©lou.
14 kaª ½rch»meno yaqai trou mhdpw meqÅonto: VI.3n. The fut. part.
was restored (for -meno AB) by Lycius before Auberius and Casaubon.
326
XIII
T H E OV E R Z E A L O U S M A N
Introductory note
The Per©ergo tries too hard. He has no sense of proportion and does not know
when to stop. He exceeds his own capacities or the requirements of the case.
This kind of perierg©a is not ‘intermeddling with other folk’s affairs’ (LSJ),
‘a synonym of the more common polupragmoÅnh, the meddlesomeness for
which Athenians were especially famous’ (Rusten). What he does he overdoes,
and when this affects others he may be called meddlesome; but to meddle with
others is not his aim, and not all of his actions have others in view. ‘Officiousness’
(Jebb, Edmonds) is a less satisfactory translation than ‘overdoing it’ (Vellacott)
or ‘overzealousness’ (Bennett and Hammond, Rusten).
[1 ] Definition
ìAmlei: II.9n.
<¡> perierg©a: the art., added by Bücheler, is found instead of mlei in
descendants of A (Torraca (1974) 96).
d»xei<en n> e²nai: def. I n. The fut. indic., often retained here and in
definitions XXI and XXIII, is inappropriate.
propo©h© ti l»gwn kaª prxewn met ì eÉno©a: ‘well-intentioned
appropriation of words and actions’ (Rusten) is an honest translation, which
brings out the ineptitude of the expression; ‘presumption in word or deed’
(Jebb) and ‘over-assumption of responsibility in word or deed’ (Edmonds) are
less inept and less accurate. The expression is similar in language and struc-
ture to the unsatisfactory def. I propo©hi pª ce±ron prxewn kaª l»gwn.
There is no convincing emendation: peripo©hi Ribbeck 1870, peritt»th
Herwerden, prop»nhi Meerwaldt, pr»ptwi Gaiser. See Stein 194.
The expression met ì eÉno©a appears in [Pl.] Def. 413b (jil©a . . . koinwn©a
met ì eÉno©a), but is very common elsewhere (And. 1.9, Lys. 16.9, 19.11, Isoc.
1.44, al., Is. 2.2, al., Pl. Phdr. 241 c, Lg. 695d, D. 18.199, al., Aeschin. 2.1, Hyp.
Ath. 2, Lycurg. fr. 28 Conomis, Men. fr. 107.2).
2 <o³o> pagglleqai nat m dunetai: for the general idea,

X. Cyr. 2.2.12 to± . . . poiein m ¬kano© e«in Ëpicnoumnoi. Here per-
haps the reverse of XXII.3 pid»ewn gignomnwn n täi dmwi nat
iwp¦i k toÓ mou pelqe±n. There the ìAneleÅqero gets up and leaves
when pid»ei are being promised in the Assembly. Here the Per©ergo gets
up and promises something (such as an p©doi) which he cannot perform. For
327
COMMENTARY
pagglleqai in this connection, IG ii2 351.12–13 (330/29 bc), ph[g]-

g[e©lato t]äi dmwi pidÛei[n (cf. 212.13–15 (347/6 bc), 345.11 –12 (332/1
bc)); A. Kuenzi, EPIDOSIS (Bern 1923) 3, 16, 59. The part. nat (XII.9n.)
is added to a verb of speaking with formulaic regularity: e.g. E. Or. 885, 917,
Th. 6.41.1, Lys. 12.73, 74, 13.8, 9, X. An. 3.2.34, HG 2.3.24, D. 3.18, 8.52,
18.136, Aeschin. 1.110. To suppose that nat is a variant for the corrupt
n tini t below, and to substitute nat (Ast) or ntanat (Diels)
for n tini t, was ill judged. With m dunetai cf. E. IT 62, IA 1215
taÓta gr duna©meq ì n, LSJ i.1. An infin. (dunetai <potele±n> Schnei-
der, <pitelai> Naber) is not needed.
<o³o> is reported from Par. supp. gr. 450 (46 Wilson) by Torraca (1974)
96, and from Vat. 102 (60 Wilson) by Stefanis (1994a) 119; <o³on> is attested
earlier in d.
3 kaª ¾mologoumnou toÓ prgmato dika©ou e²nai nte©na legcq¦nai: for

toÓ prgmato, XII.5n. Not tou (Ussing before Diels); the article indicates
that his business is at issue. nte©na is intrans., as E. fr. 340.2 (but not Or. 698,
cited by LSJ iii.1); cf. Pl. R. 536c mllon nteinmeno e²pon (LSJ ii.1), and
on VIII.7 pente©nein. This conjecture (n tini t AB; for the corruption see
on XVIII.4 kulike±on) gives exactly the right sense, which is not ‘argumenta
contraria contentiosius proferens’ (Immisch 1923), but ‘he becomes too intense’
(Rusten). When he ought to rest his case, because there is general agreement
that it is a fair one, he persists in arguing it (and alienates the judges, or
raises doubts in their minds). The same verb had already appeared in the
conjectures nte©nei dikat (Bernhard ap. Reiske (1783) 362) and nte©nein
ãt ì (Darvaris). Conjectures which introduce the idea of ‘opposition’ ruin
the point: ntent Reiske 1749 (Briefe 360), nt, ntit, ntite©na
Reiske 1757, nitmeno Schneider, nte©pa Naber, ntanat Diels, n©
tini nt Edmonds 1929.
4 kaª ple©w d panagkai t¼n pa±da kerai £ Âa dÅnantai o¬ par»nte

kpie±n: kerai is ‘mix’, ‘dilute with water’ (LSJ i.1, Arnott on Alex. 232.2;
cf. XXX.5), preparatory to drinking (IV.6n.). Neut. pl. Âa, referring loosely to
‘cups’ (this verb regularly takes ‘cup’ and the like as object), is not demonstrably
objectionable. But Âon (c, Navarre 1920), sc. o²non, a natural ellipse (Antiph.
25.3, Men. Sam. 673 kernnutai, sc. o²no), could be right.
5 kaª die©rgein toÆ macomnou kaª oÍ oÉ gignÛkei: cf. X. Lac. 4.6
dialÅein . . . toÆ macomnou, [Men.] Mon. 184 Jäkel dilue . . . macom-
nou j©lou. The more expressive die©rgein (elsewhere of solid or natural
obstructions: battlements H. Il. 12.424, river Hdt. 1.180.1, X. An. 3.1.2, ravine
328
X I I I : T H E OV E R Z E A L O U S M A N
Th. 3.107.3) suggests that he interposes himself as a physical barrier between

the combatants. ka© (‘even strangers’) is entirely apt, and deletion (Ast
before Cobet 1874, who also deletes toÅ with Ussing) and addition (kaª
<pzeqai> Fraenkel and Groeneboom) are equally misguided. But for
oÉ we should expect m (Navarre 1924), the neg. used in comparable expres-
sions at III.2 Án m gignÛkei, XI.5 æi m unqh t©, and always in relative
clauses (§2, XII.10, XXX.20). For gign- (gin- AB), III.2n.
6 kaª trap¼n ¡gaqai, e²ta m dÅnaqai eËre±n o³ poreÅetai: to abandon

the main road, in the hope that a path will provide a short cut, is proverbially
unwise (App. Prov. iv.12 (CPG 1.437) ¾doÓ paroÅh tn trap¼n m ztei,
Kassel and Austin on Ar. fr. 47). Cf. Enn. scen. 267 Jocelyn qui sibi semitam non
sapiunt alteri monstrant uiam.
I restore acc. trap»n with ¡gaqai, as D.S. 30.5 t¼n ¡gh»menon t
nelp©tou . . . trapoÅ, Paus. 1.4.2 tn trap¼n ¥n kaª Mdoi pot
ìEjilth ¡gato; similarly ¾d¼n ¡ge±qai H. Od. 10.263, Hdt. 9.15.1, E. fr.
943.1, Pl. Ep. 340c, X. An. 5.4.10, Cyr. 3.2.28, 4.2.14, PCG adesp. 171 Âti t¦
¾doÓ | ¡geta© oi tn (t¦ Blaydes, t¦d ì Herwerden, wrongly) pitx
(presumably sc. ¾d»n), Str. 5.4.2, al.; ¾d¼n ¡gemoneÅein H. Od. 6.261, al., Parm.
B 1.5, Theoc. 11.27. See also on XVI.3 tn ¾d¼n . . . poreuq¦nai.
For e²ta, IX.2n. o³ (Casaubon) for oÕ (AB) is commended by S. Ai. 690 Âpoi
poreuton, Ant. 892 o³ poreÅomai, Pl. Phd. 67b, Ti. 21 e, X. An. 3.5.17, Cyr.
1.1.5 (u.l. Âphi), 7.2.29 (u.ll. Âphi, Âpou), Hier. 2.8; for the corruption, XI.6n.
Of the examples of ‘where’ for ‘whither’ cited by KG 1.545 Anmerk. 4 some
are different, others corrupt. ï (also Casaubon) is less effective. Deliberative
subjunctive poreÅhtai (M, Edmonds 1929), ‘where he is to go to’, would imply
that he has a choice, and is therefore inappropriate. He has no choice but to go
where the path leads him, and he gets lost because he cannot discover where
it is leading.
7 kaª t¼n trathg¼n proelqÜn rwt¦ai p»te mllei parattteqai

kaª t© met tn aÎrion paraggele±: cf. Plu. Demetr. 28.5 lgetai goÓn
meirkion ti Ànta t¼n Dhmtrion aÉtoÓ puqqai, p»te mllouin
nazeugnÅein· t¼n d ì e«pe±n pr¼ ½rgn· “ ìAgwnii m m»no Æ t¦
lpiggo oÉk koÅhi;”. For proelqÛn, XII.4n. init. According to Ste-
fanis (1994a) 120 n. 87, no ms. has paraggele± (-llei AB, -lei c1 e), reported
as a u.l. by Lycius, ascribed to c by Giesecke, claimed as a conjecture by Bloch,
Hirschig, Foss 1858.
8 kaª proelqÜn täi patrª e«pe±n Âti ¡ mthr ¢dh kaqeÅdei n täi
dwmat©wi: this is tantamount to telling his father that it is bedtime. It does not
make him appear to ‘matri suae . . . lenocinari’ (Casaubon).
329
COMMENTARY
9 kaª pagoreÅonto toÓ «atroÓ Âpw m dÛei o²non täi malakizomnwi:

for the construction (p- Âpw m + fut. indic.), KG 2.9, Goodwin §355.
malakizomnwi (A) was conjectured (when A was unknown) by C. Gesner
(before Stephanus) for kallwpizomnwi (B). The latter also prompted kauma-
tizomnwi, conjectured by an anonymous predecessor of Casaubon (Introduc-
tion, p. 54 n. 172) and found in the margin of Leiden, B. P. G. 59 (17 Wilson)
(Torraca (1994a) xxxviii–ix, Stefanis (1994a) 101 n. 74). For the medical sense
of malak©zeqai, I.4n.
ja boÅleqai dipeiran lambnein eÔ pot©ai t¼n kakä conta: the
expression boÅleqai lambnein dipeiran recurs in D. 56.18, J. AJ 1.223,
2.125, 4.96, 9.126, Plu. Thes. 30.1, D.L. 7.36. Regularly lambnein dipeiran
(e.g. CP 4.16.3); also l- pe±ran (LSJ pe±ra i.1, Kassel and Austin on PCG adesp.
1032.23; add E. fr. 993, Alex. 18.1, 206.1) and p»peiran (Th. 7.21.2).
eÔ pot©ai is a brilliant conjecture. The verb is used in medical contexts
(Arist. Phys. 199a 34 p»tien ¾ «atr¼ t¼ jrmakon, Macho 4–5 pep»tike . . .
ãper «atr» mì . . . de±); also of ‘watering’ animals (HP 4.3.6, Theoc. 1.121;
cf. Pl. Phdr. 247e toÆ ¯ppou . . . nktar p»tien) or plants (X. Smp. 2.25). For
eÔ, II.12, XX.9. eÉtrep©ai (AB) is attested in a medical sense ‘treat’ (LSJ i.2,
J.-H. Kühn and U. Fleischer, Index Hippocraticus (Göttingen 1986–9) s.u.). But
conjectures which try to accommodate it produce clumsy phrasing: j¦ai for
ja Schwartz, leaving eÉtrep©ai to be governed by d- l-, unhappily; hence
<did»nai> (<doÓnai> Coray) ja . . . e« eÉtrep©ei Reiske 1757, <doÓnai>
ja . . . <toÓ> eÉtrep©ai Terzaghi; Giesecke marks a lacuna after malak-
izomnwi. Not much better eÉtrep©ai p»ton kakä conti Ribbeck 1870,
much worse narrip©ai Ussing, pitr±yai Herwerden, diapeirn doÓnai
<kaª> natrop©ai Edmonds 1929. See also XX.9n.
kakä cein regularly means ‘be unwell’: XXII.6, HP 6.3.6, Ar. Ra. 58,
fr. 132, Men. Asp. 305, Georg. 52, Dysc. 730, 881, Philem.Jun. 2, Macho 70, Hp.
Morb. 1.8.21 (6.156 Littré), Loc.Hom. 33 (6.324). Deletion of t¼n kakä conta
(Pasquali, Edmonds 1929, Terzaghi) is rash. It provides suitable variation after
täi malakizomnwi, and the antithesis eÔ . . . kakä has a hint of humour.
10 In non-verse epitaphs it was customary to inscribe on the tombstone of an

Athenian woman her own name and that of her father and his deme, and, if
she was married, the name of her husband and his deme, either in addition
to or instead of her father. Her mother was never named, her deme hardly
ever. The epithet crht» / crht was sometimes added on the tombs of
slaves, very rarely of metics, never of Athenians. See E. L. Hicks, JHS 3 (1882)
141 –3, E. Loch, De Titulis Graecis Sepulcralibus (Königsberg 1890) esp. 34–6,
W. Schulze, RhM 48 (1893) 255–6 = Kleine Schriften (Göttingen 2 1966) 420–1,
P. M. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments (Oxford 1977) 71 –2, T. Vestergaard
et al., ‘A typology of the women recorded on gravestones from Attica’, AJAH
330
X I I I : T H E OV E R Z E A L O U S M A N
10 (1985 [1993]) 178–90, Whitehead, Demes of Attica 78–9, Ch. Fragiadakis,

Die attischen Sklavennamen (Athens 1988) 158, Lane Fox 149–50. There is no
indication whether this woman is Athenian or foreign. If she is foreign (Lane
Fox), the epitaph will appropriately record where she came from (podap); so
that while it will lack the economy due to an Athenian woman (whose mother
would not be named), only the commendation of the whole family as crhto©
can be called extravagant. If, on the other hand, she is Athenian, her mother
is additionally superfluous; so too is her place of origin, whether we take that
to refer to her deme or to Athens (see below on podap). This is much more
amusing: he treats an Athenian woman and her family to an extravagance of
style suited only to foreigners and slaves. Steinmetz incautiously suggests that
he should have left the inscription to the dead woman’s relatives. We do not
know that she has any living relatives, or that he is not one himself.
pigryai pª t¼ mn¦ma: this is the usual construction (Th. 1.132.2 pª t¼n
tr©poda . . . pigryaqai, [D.] (Apollod.) 59.97, Plb. 8.31.4, D.S. 2.23.3),
not pª täi mnmati (Blaydes). Cf. XXI.9, XXII.2.
toÓ te ndr¼ aÉt¦ ka©: for te . . . ka©, def. VI n. For the position of the
demonstrative, XIV.7 aÉtoÓ tän j©lwn, XXVIII.5 toÆ o«ke©ou aÉtoÓ (KG
1.619).
podap: a term of general inquiry about origins, normally racial or civic.
Sometimes (what confirms that it is essentially general) it is given more precise
focus by the addition of words for race or city (Ar. Pax 186, Au. 108, Alex. 94.1
podap¼ t¼ gno;, Ar. Th. 136 (A. fr. 61) podap¼ ¾ gÅnni; t© ptra;,
E. Cycl. 276–7, IT 246). In the fourth century, and perhaps even earlier, it came
to be used as equivalent to po±o (Pearson on S. fr. 453, Arnott on Alex. 94.1,
Olson on Ar. Ach. 767–8). Here it suits the purpose of Theophrastus (see the
introductory comment on §10) that it should be applicable to an inquiry about
deme (for, with Hicks and against Lane Fox, I take it that it is so applicable)
no less than city or race. The spelling pot- (AB) is attested by the papyrus
at Men. Asp. 241, and by the Marcianus of Ath. at Alex. 232.3 and (in effect)
177.3. It is condemned as un-Attic by Phryn. Ecl. 36, p. 63 Fischer. There is no
evidence that it was admissible in the fourth century. For differing views see
W. G. Rutherford, The New Phrynichus (London 1881) 128–30 (against), Austin
and Sandbach on Men. Asp. 241 (in favour), Arnott on Alex. 94.1 (neutral).
11 kaª ½mnÅnai mllwn e«pe±n pr¼ toÆ periethk»ta Âti “Kaª pr»teron
pollki ½mÛmoka”: cf. Men. fr. 96.1 –3 ½mnÅw oi . . . ½mwmokÜ kaª
pr»teron ¢dh pollki (whence Alciphr. 4.18.1 ßmoa pollki). For Âti
introducing direct speech, II.8n.
o¬ periethk»te is the standard expression (not recognised by LSJ) for the
spectators who stand around the edges of the law-court: Ar. Ach. 915, Antipho
6.14, Is. 5.20, D. 18.196, 19.309, 20.165, 25.98, 45.13, 54.41, Aeschin. 2.5,
331
COMMENTARY
3.56, 207, Hyp. Dem. 22, Din. 1.30, 66, 2.19; A. L. Boegehold and M. Crosby,
The Athenian Agora, xxviii: The Lawcourts at Athens (Princeton 1995) 192–4, A. M.
Lanni, ‘Spectator sport or serious politics? o¬ periethk»te and the Athenian
lawcourts’, JHS 117 (1997) 183–9, Whitehead on Hyp. Dem. 22. It is also used
of (foreign) spectators at meetings of the Ecclesia (Aeschin. 3.224, Din. 2.15,
3.1) and spectators at a performance by sophists (Isoc. 12.19).
Oaths might be sworn in court by witnesses (in homicide cases, always;
in other cases, only when requested by a litigant) or by litigants themselves
(Harrison 2.150–3, MacDowell, Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators
(Manchester 1963) 90–100, id., Law 119, J. Plescia, The Oath and Perjury in
Ancient Greece (Tallahassee 1970) 40–57, Todd in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, S. Todd
(edd.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society (Cambridge 1990) 35).
So perhaps the Per©ergo, as litigant or witness, is speaking to the spectators
in court. A litigant might solicit the spectators’ sympathy (e.g. D. 18.196). But
a litigant or witness who informs them that he has often sworn oaths abuses
their interest and over-dramatises his role. Perhaps he implies (with a touch
of vanity and self-importance) that his oath is to be trusted, because his many
past oaths have never been found false. If so, the view is disputable: Phil. De
spec. leg. 2.8 (5.87 Cohn-Wendland) oÉ gr p©tew ¡ poluork©a tekmrion
ll ì pit©a tª par to± eÔ jronoÓin, Hieroc. in CA 1.20 bou t¼n
Ârkon, täi m proce©rw aÉtäi katacr¦qai, ¯n ì qiq¦i eÉorke±n k toÓ
m qiq¦nai ½mnÅnai. Cf. T. Hirzel, Der Eid (Leipzig 1902) 87 n. 2.
So the language suits (indeed suggests) a court. But it does not exclude scenes
other than a court: pr¼ toÆ periethk»ta is a degree less explicit than pª
dikathr©ou (XXIX.5) would have been. Oaths were commonly sworn out
of court, and we may, if we choose, imagine an oath sworn in a public place
in connection with some private transaction. Then toÆ periethk»ta will
refer to bystanders who, because they are addressed by the oath-taker, become,
as it were, his audience. parethk»ta (A), merely bystanders, is inferior
(D. 56.48 pareti, of spectators in court, is anomalous and should perhaps
be emended to perieti); contrast XXV.4, where it is apt. For the confusion,
IV.13n.
332
XIV
THE OBTUSE MAN
Introductory note
ìAnaiqh©a and na©qhto are frequently applied, in a spirit of criticism or
abuse, to an unperceptiveness which is conceived as being akin to stupidity: Th.
1.69.3, 1.82.1, 6.86.4, Isoc. 5.75, 7.9, 12.85, 112, 13.9, Pl. Lg. 962c, Thrasym.
85 b1, D. 5.15, 17.22, 18.43, 120, 128, 221, 21.153, 22.64, 24.182, 51.19, Ep.
3.8, 13, Aeschin. 2.43, Hyp. Lyc. 7, Arist. EN 1114 a 10, Ph. 218b 26. Aristotle has
a specialised application: in the enjoyment of pleasure, where wjroÅnh is
the mean and kola©a is an excess, a deficiency is naiqh©a ‘insensibility’
(EN 1104 a 24, 1107 b 4–8, 1108b 20–2, 1109a 3–5, 1119a 1 –11, EE 1221 a 2, 19–23,
1230b 9–15, 1231 a 26–39, 1234 b 9). Cf. Vogt on [Arist.] Phgn. 807 b 19.
For Theophrastus, naiqh©a indicates a general unperceptiveness or lack
of sensitivity to present circumstances. The ìAna©qhto is sometimes obtuse
or stupid, sometimes forgetful, absent-minded, inattentive, always unfocused
and out of touch. This is behaviour which, in the emperor Claudius, Suetonius
labelled ‘obliuionem et inconsiderantiam uel . . . metewr©an et bley©an’
(Cl. 39.1).
[1 ] Definition
Stein suggests that the definition may owe something to Pl. Chrm. 160b oÉkoÓn
pnta . . . ¡m±n kaª t perª tn yucn kaª t perª t¼ äma, t toÓ tcou te
kaª t¦ ½xÅthto kall©w ja©netai £ t t¦ bradut¦t» te kaª ¡uci»thto;.
There bradut is slowness in learning: cf. 159e tin . . . ¡ mn eÉmaq©a
tacw manqnein, ¡ d dumaq©a ¡uc¦i kaª bradw;. These passages are
echoed by [Pl.] Def. 415e dumaq©a bradut n maqei (Ingenkamp 96).
For such ‘slowness’ in learning or perception cf. also Pl. Phdr. 239a ¤ttwn . . .
bradÆ gc©nou, Ar. Nu. 129–30 pä oÔn grwn àn kpilmwn kaª bradÆ |
l»gwn kribän cindalmou maqomai;, Ariston fr. 14, VIII Wehrli Þ
tacÆ un¦ka, ll ì ju gÜ kaª bradÆ kaª dua©qhto, D.S. 3.67.2
kiqar©zein manqnonta di tn t¦ yuc¦ bradut¦ta m dÅnaqai dxaqai
tn mqhin. The notion of slowness in learning is foreign to Theophras-
tus. Slowness in perception would not be foreign. And one might claim
that the ìAna©qhto, by his speech and behaviour, shows that he is the
kind of man who is slow to take things in. But the definition is unsatis-
factory, since slowness to take things in does not define his behaviour or
speech.
333
COMMENTARY
ï Eti d: the change of ti d ka© (A: ti ka© B) to ti d (c) restores the
same beginning as X, XXIV, XXVIII, XXIX, perhaps unnecessarily. V has
ï Etin (without d) at XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX.
Þ Ârwi e«pe±n: def. I n.
bradut yuc¦: bradut <ti t¦> y – Duport (ti def. I n.; but
yuc¦ without art. in def. XXV, XXVIII).
n l»goi kaª prxein: def. I n.
2 logimeno ta± yjoi kaª kejlaion poia rwtn t¼n parakaq-

menon “T© g©gnetai;”: y¦joi are counters used in abacus calculations. For
the abacus, A. Nagl, Die Rechentafel der Alten (SAWW 177, 1914), id., ‘Abacus’,
RE Suppl. iii (1918) 4–13, T. Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics (Oxford 1921)
1.46–51, M. Lang, ‘Herodotus and the abacus’, Hesperia 26 (1957) 271 –87,
ead. ‘The abacus and the calendar’, ibid. 33 (1964) 146–67, 34 (1965) 224–47,
P. Keyser, ‘Errors of calculation in Herodotus’, CJ 81 (1986) 230–42 (esp. 231),
Arnott on Alex. 15.3, G. Binder, ‘Abacus’, DNP 1 (1996) 3–4, 12.2 (2002) 877–8.
For the language, XXIII.6 qe±nai t yjou . . . kaª . . . poi¦ai kaª dka
tlanta, XXIV.12 logiz»meno . . . t yjou diaqe±nai (Sheppard: diwqe±n
V) kaª kejlaion poianti ktl., Hdt. 2.36.4 log©zontai yjoii, Ar. V. 656
l»giai jaÅlw, m yjoi ll ì p¼ ceir», fr. 362 yhjol»gion (abacus), D.
18.229 oÉ tiqeª yjou (oÉ gr tin ¾ tän pragmtwn oÕto logim»),
D.L. 1.59 ta± yjoi ta± pª tän logimän. Intrans. logimeno is unex-
ceptionable (X.4n.), and there is no call for l- <ti> (Cobet 1874), prompted
by l- ti ta± (A), a careless slip. The subject of t© g©gnetai; is t¼ kejlaion,
as Lys. 19.40, 43, D. 27.10, 11, 34.24; cf. XXIII.5, LSJ g©gnomai i.2a.
3 kaª d©khn jeÅgwn kaª taÅthn e«inai mllwn pilaq»meno e« gr¼n
poreÅeqai: for resumptive taÅthn see on I.2 kaª toÅtoi ktl.; for e«inai
d©khn, with litigant as subject, LSJ e«rcomai iii.2. No need for taÅth . . .
melloÅh (Blaydes), like Is. 5.31 melloÅh . . . t¦ pr¼ Lewcrh d©kh
e«inai (LSJ e«rcomai iii.4). For e« gr»n, IV.2n.
4 kaª qewrän n täi qetrwi m»no katale©peqai kaqeÅdwn: qewrän is ‘as

a theatre-goer’ (IV.5n., VII.8n.), not ‘while watching the play’, which would
be incompatible with what follows. For n täi qetrwi, XI.3n. It is easy to fall
asleep in the modern theatre, when attention flags. But this man falls asleep on
a stone bench, and is not woken even by the noise and jostle of the departing
audience. His solitary stupor in an empty theatre is a fine comic touch.
5 kaª poll jagÜn t¦ nukt¼ [kaª] pª qkon nitmeno: ka©, commonly
interpolated (§10, VII.4n.), must be deleted, since t¦ nukt» (III.2, IV.11)
belongs not with poll jagÛn but with pª qkon nitmeno. Transposed
334
X I V: T H E O B T U S E M A N
before t¦ nukt» (C. Salmasius, Plinianae Exercitationes in Caji Julii Solini Poly-
histora (Utrecht 1689) 431), it impossibly coordinates present part. with aorist.
pª qkon nitmeno does not mean ‘getting up from bed to go to the
lavatory’ (his neighbour’s dog does not bite him in his bedroom) but ‘when he
gets up and is on his way to the lavatory’ (the dog bites him because he is clumsy
enough to wake it up, probably by blundering about in the street outside). The
present part. nitmeno represents an imperfect indic. n©tato (KG 1.143–
4, 200, Schwyzer 2.277–8, 297; similarly §13 lgonto representing lege,
IV.7n.), regular in expressions of this kind: Pl. Phd. 116a n©tato e« okhm
ti Þ lou»meno (LSJ b.ii.1), X. HG 2.4.6 n©tanto Âpoi de±to kato
p¼ tän Âplwn, 7.1.16 k d tän tibdwn n©tanto Âpoi (Schneider:
Âpou codd.) de±to kato, where I take n©tanto Âpoi de±to (‘they went
where they needed to go’) to be a euphemism for finding a place to relieve
oneself (the translations which I have seen are either inexplicit or wrong).
Similarly Hp. Epid. 7.47.2 (5.416 Littré) pª qkon n©tato, 7.84.5 (5.442)
pª qkon nat. The verb n©taqai is even used on its own in the sense
(unnoticed by LSJ) ‘go to the lavatory’ at Epid. 1.2 (2.608 Littré), 3.1 (3.52); and
ntai regularly denotes ‘going to the lavatory’ in the sense ‘evacuation’
(Epid. 3.1 (3.40 Littré), 6.7.1 (5.336), 7.3.2, 4.1 (5.368, 372), Coac. 2.14.262
(5.640), al., Mnesith. ap. Orib. 8.38.11 tn ntain eÉqÆ pª toÓ qkou
poie±qai). Cf. J. A. López Férez, ‘Eufemismos y vocabulario técnico en el
Corpus Hippocraticum’, in F. de Martino and A. H. Sommerstein (edd.), Studi
sull’ Eufemismo (Bari 1999) 229. Other such euphemistic verbs are popate±n,
jodeÅein, and English ‘go’ (OED Suppl. ‘Go’ 31.g); cf. J. N. Adams, The Latin
Sexual Vocabulary (London 1982) 242, López Férez 223–4.
Although chamber pots might be used for defecation (Ar. Pax 1228, Ec. 371,
fr. 477, Eup. 240, Pl.Com. 124), it was normal to go outside (Ar. Nu. 1384–90),
even at night (Ach. 1168–70, Th. 483–9, Ec. 313–26). The Athenian lavatory (in
such houses as had one) was likely to be a pit in the courtyard or just outside it
(H. A. Thompson, Hesperia 28 (1959) 101 –2, E. J. Owens, CQ 33 (1983) 46–7;
cf. Eub. 52.2–5). Public lavatories are unknown at Athens before Roman times
(Thompson and Wycherley, Agora xiv 197). Since qko is a euphemism, like
d©jro (Poll. 10.45) and ‘stool’ (OED 5), it would be unsafe to infer that a
lavatory might have a seat. Plu. Lyc. 20.6 n pocwrei qakeÅonta pª
d©jrwn refers to seats; but the anecdote has no evidential value. What may
be a portable lavatory seat has been found in fourth-century Olynthus (D. M.
Robinson and J. W. Graham, Excavations at Olynthus 8 (Baltimore 1938) 205–6,
Pl. 55; cf. Robinson, ibid. 12 (1946) 178–80).
qkou (AB) should be changed to qkon (Schneider; qkon e, Casaubon),
for conformity with Epid. 7.47.2, 84.5 (above), even though p© with gen.
may denote ‘the goal of motion’ (LSJ a.i.3b). p¼ (d) qkou goes against
the colloquial idiom. So too does t¦ nukt¼ <nat> Þ pª qkou
335
COMMENTARY
(Diels; the same without supplement Pasquali), which is founded on the false
assumption that nitmeno (om. A) is also omitted by B and is therefore
merely an addition in the later mss. Many have assumed a lacuna, unprof-
itably: nukt¼ <gumn»> Herwerden, nitmeno <diamartÜn t¦ qÅra>
Fraenkel and Groeneboom, nitmeno <poplanÛmeno> Wilamowitz
1902b, nitmeno <kaª t¦ ¾doÓ poplanÛmeno> Koujeas, pª qkou
n©taqai <kaª paniÜn nutxai kaª tn qÅran llognoa> Edmonds
1929, kaq<meno> pª qkou Stark.
Ëp¼ t¦ toÓ ge©tono kun¼ dhcq¦nai: not Ëp¼ kun¼ t¦ toÓ ge©tono
(AB). ‘The neighbour’s dog’ can be expressed by: (i) ¡ toÓ ge©tono kÅwn, like
XXII.5 t toÓ kuberntou trÛmata, XXVI.5 t¼ tän dhmagwgän gno,
XXVII.13 täi tän paid©wn paidagwgäi; (ii) ¡ kÅwn ¡ toÓ ge©tono, like
XVIII.4 tn guna±ka tn aËtoÓ, XXII.10 t¦i gunaikª . . . t¦i autoÓ, XXX.7
t¼ mro t¼ aËtoÓ (§10n.; also, for the repeated article in similar structures,
XX.6n.); (iii) ¡ kÅwn toÓ ge©tono, like II.3 t¼ tr©cwma t¦ kejal¦, VIII.8
t pr»wpa tän n to± prgmain; (iv) toÓ ge©tono ¡ kÅwn, like XIII.10
toÓ . . . ndr¼ . . . toÎnoma, XVII.7, XXII.4, XXX.9, 15. Cf. KG. 1.617–
18. Here (iv) toÓ ge©tono t¦ kun» is ruled out by the position of Ëp».
I have preferred (i) t¦ toÓ ge©tono kun»; but (ii) <t¦> kun¼ t¦ toÓ
ge©tono (Edmonds 1908) and (iii) t¦ kun¼ toÓ ge©tono are acceptable.
Other proposals: Ëp¼ kun¼ toÓ ge©tono Schwartz, pª t¼n toÓ ge©tono
qkon nitmeno Ëp¼ t¦ kun¼ d- Kayser. For kÅwn fem., V.8n.; guard-
dogs, IV.9n.
6 kaª labÛn <ti> kaª poqeª aÉt¼ toÓto zhte±n kaª m dÅnaqai eËre±n:
an object is needed for labÛn, and <ti> (a few mss. (Torraca (1974) 97,
Stefanis (1994a) 101, 119), coni. J. M. Gesner) is good enough, and better
than <rgÅrion> (Petersen); cf. I.5, II.4, IV.6, VII.10, X.7, XV.4, XVIII.9,
XXIV.7, XXX.18 <ti>. The order poqe© <ti> (Hartung) gains no support
from M, which has kaª poqe© ti oÉc eËr©k<o>i. For poqe©, IX.3n. For
resumptive demonstrative after participial clause (as §13), XXI.10, XXIII.9.
7 kaª paggelqnto aÉtäi Âti teteleÅthk ti aÉtoÓ tän j©lwn: cf.
XXII.9 dihggelmnou (Holland: dieilegmnou V) aÉtäi, Th. 1.74.1 dhl-
wqnto Âti, 1.116.3 aggelqntwn Âti (also D. 50.17), 6.58.1 ggelqnto,
X. Cyr. 6.2.19 paggellomnwn Âti, Aeschin. 1.43 xaggelqnto . . . aÉto±,
D.S. 19.6.1 proaggelqnto Âti. In the gen. absolute, when an indefinite
personal subject is unexpressed, plural part. is regular (so XIX.8 eÉcomnwn
kaª pend»ntwn, XXX.18, 20), but sing. (as paggllonto AB) is anomalous
(KG 2.81 –2, Schwyzer 2.400–1, Headlam on Herod. 2.85, Diggle, Euripidea
221). Navarre 1924 cites Ariston fr. 14, ii Wehrli qÅran llotr©an k»ptwn,
perwtanto t© tin, mhdn pokr©neqai mcri n xlqhi, where the
336
subject of perwtanto is not indefinite but is a specific person (implied

in llotr©an), who becomes subject of the following xlqhi. He also cites
Arist. ‘Econom., 6’; if this is Oec. 1.6.4 (1345 a 9), ËpodeiknÅnto refers to the
previously mentioned master of the house. paggelqn (Herwerden) has less
appeal; so too paggllont» <tino> (cd), which would anticipate the
structure of §13 lgont» tino. No objection, however, must be taken to the
tense of paggllonto.The present part. would represent imperfect indic.
pggelle (§5n.). For the order aÉtoÓ tän j©lwn, XIII.10n.
¯na paragnhtai: perhaps implying attendance at the pr»qei as well
as the funeral: D. 43.64 taÅta keleÅei t prohkoÅa kaª pare±nai t¦i
proqei toÓ teteleuthk»to kaª pª t¼ mn¦ma kolouqe±n, Isoc. 19.31 oÉd ì
peid teleutn ¢melle t¼n b©on, ¾räa toÆ pol©ta toÆ ¡metrou . . .
diaplonta e« Aginan ¯n ì aÉt¼n ugkataqyeian, oÉd ì e« toÓton t¼n
kair¼n pnthen ll ì oÌtw Ýmä kaª cetl©w e²cen ãt ì pª mn t¼
k¦do oÉk x©wen jikqai ktl. See D. C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek
Burial Customs (London 1971) 143–6, R. Garland, The Greek Way of Death (London
1985) 23–34. Contrast XVI.9.
e«pe±n “ ìAgaq¦i tÅchi”: here an interjection, without verb, as Men. Dysc.
422, Epit. 223, Kith. 40,68 Sam. 297, PCG adesp. 1091.3, oracle ap. D. 43.66.
Not ‘Heaven be praised!’ (Jebb), like Ter. An. 105 Chrysis uicina haec moritur. :: o
factum bene!, but ‘Good luck to him!’ (Edmonds), like Men. Asp. 381 p»qnhik ì
gaq¦i tÅchi (‘Die, and good luck to you’).69 It is more commonly linked to a
verb (most often an imperative) and always has future reference: Ar. Au. 436,
675, Th. 283, Ec. 131, And. 1.120, Pl. Ti. 26e, Cri. 43d, Phlb. 57e, Smp. 177e,
Lg. 625c, 919d, X. HG 4.1.14, Cyr. 4.5.51, D. 3.18, Prooem. 32.4, Aeschin. 3.154,
Men. Asp. 381 (above), Dysc. 816, Sam. 116, Nicostr.Com. 18.3, PCG adesp.
1089.18, 1093.125; also in Athenian treaties and decrees (Th. 4.118.11, LSJ
tÅch iii.4).70 Cf. Cic. Diu. 1.102 maiores nostri . . . omnibus rebus agendis ‘quod bonum
faustum felix fortunatumque esset’ praefabantur.

polambnwn rgÅrion ½jeil»menon mrtura paralabe±n: it was natu-
ral to have witnesses when making a loan or repayment (Ar. Nu. 1152, Ec. 448,
Lys. 17.2, Isoc. 21.7, Is. fr. 28 Thalheim, D. 30.19–20, 34.30, 50.30). The payer
needs proof that he has paid. But for the recipient to call witnesses is obtuse:
he needs no proof that he has been paid. The verb polambnwn, ‘taking
68 For the correct distribution of parts see W. G. Arnott, ZPE 31 (1978) 29–30.
69 Cf. M. Gronewald, ZPE 93 (1992) 17. But there is much to be said for p»qnhik ì : :
gaq¦i tÅchi (van Leeuwen, commended by Gronewald, ibid. 114 (1996) 60).
70 D. 18.266 gaq¦i . . . tÅchi umbebiwkÛ is a different construction (like 258 toiaÅthi
umbeb©wka tÅchi).
337
COMMENTARY
receipt’, shows that this is a straightforward and uncontroversial transaction.

The *pito (XVIII.5) is equally perverse: he calls witnessses when he asks for
payment of interest (XVIII.5). Cf. E. Leisi, Der Zeuge im attischen Recht (Frauen-
feld 1907) 143–50, J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig
1905–15) 872, F. Pringsheim, The Greek Law of Sale (Weimar 1950) 27–9, 85,
Dover on Ar. Nu. 777.
mrtura paralabe±n (Is. 3.19, D. 34.30, 47.67, 48.46, 56.13; Leisi 159)
means more than ‘call (in)’ witnesses (Jebb, LSJ ii.1); rather, ‘take as assistants,
supporters’ (LSJ ibid.). But, since the verbal repetition polambnwn . . .
paralabe±n has no stylistic point, we might consider parakale±n (Lys. 1.46,
3.22, 7.20, Isoc. 19.12, Is. 3.20–30 (7 instances), 9.13, D. 33.19, 43.70; cf. V.3,
LSJ ii.2, Leisi 159), attributing the mistake to the influence of the preceding
verb (see on V.9 palaitr©dion). Same confusion D. 34.32 (parakale±n S,
paralabe±n A).
9 kaª ceimäno Ànto mceqai täi paidª Âti ikÅou oÉk g»raen: cf.
XXIII.8 täi paidª mceqai Âti (mceqai VI.4n., Âti XXIII.9n.), Ar. fr. 581.1
Àyei d ceimäno mou ikuoÅ, b»tru, ½pÛran. For cucumbers, Olson on
Ar. Pax 999–1002, Olson and Sens on Matro 4.1, Pellegrino 179–80; shopping
by slaves, IX.4n.
10 kaª t paid©a autäi pala©ein nagkzwn kaª troczein [kaª] e« k»pon
mbale±n: he tires his children by making them wrestle with him and run against
him. autäi is governed only by pala©ein, but it readily supplies troczein
with the notion ‘against him’. autäi for autoÓ (AB) is demanded by sense, not
by style. In respect of sense: to tire his children by making them wrestle and run
against each other is not naiqh©a; therefore auto± (Stark) is also wrong. It is
naiqh©a to make them wrestle and run against himself: he takes no account
of his greater strength. In respect of style, t paid©a autoÓ would be like
XIX.5 t¦ gunaik¼ aËtoÓ, XX.9–10 ¡ o«k©a aËtoÓ . . . toÆ j©lou aËtoÓ . . .
t¼n pariton aËtoÓ, XXII.2 aËtoÓ t¼ Ànoma; similarly Ar. Nu. 515 tn jÅin
aËtoÓ, 905 t¼n patr ì aËtoÓ, Pax 880 mautoÓ täi pei, fr. 605.2 t¦i kejal¦i
autoÓ, Men. Epit. 889–90 tn kejaln . . . aËtoÓ (conjectural in Dysc. 26),
Mnesim. 3.3 täi qe©wi eautoÓ, Philem. 178.2 eautoÓ t¼n b©on, PCG adesp.
1000.38 maut¦ t¼n dion . . . b©on, D. 40.32. KG 1.620 cites further instances
in Hdt., and two in X. which are less certain, HG 7.1.44 taÅthn tn p©tin
mautoÓ (tn omitted by some mss., perhaps rightly: KG 1.628–9), 7.3.12 toÆ
eÉergta autän (in a sentence deleted by Nauck). This structure is, however,
less regular than t autoÓ paid©a (VII.10 tän aËtoÓ paid©wn, III.2, IV.3,
VI.6, X.8 (bis), XII.3, XXI.11, XXV.8, XXVII.12, XXVIII.4, XXX.16) and
t paid©a t autoÓ (XVIII.4 tn guna±ka tn aËtoÓ, XXII.10, XXX.7);
KG 1.569–70, 619. Hence t p- <t> autoÓ Edmonds 1908 and t autoÓ
338
paid©a Diels (Index s.u. autoÓ); also t paid©a [autoÓ] Edmonds 1929, as
XVI.12, XXII.6, XXVII.13; cf. IX.5, XX.5, XXI.3, XXVII.3, XXX.6, 14.
Contrast (without art.) IX.5 xnoi . . . aËtoÓ, XII.12 aËtoÓ . . . pa±, XXII.4
aËtoÓ qugatra (KG 1.627). For the form aut-, I.2n.
Omission of ka© (Casaubon; also c, but with troczwn) is far better than
nagkzein (Reiske 1749 (Briefe 360), 1757; reported from Par. supp. gr. 450
(46 Wilson) by Torraca 1974) with ka© retained, which leaves the relation-
ship between the infinitives less clear. For interpolation of ka©, §5, VII.4n.
With nagkzwn, it is clear that pala©ein . . . kaª troczein are coordinated
(for the order see on V.9 palaitr©dion kon©tran con kaª jairitrion); so
p- kaª tr- nagkzwn (Pauw before Navarre 1920) is unwanted. Plural k»pou
(A) is possible (Od. 50, fr. 7 tit. Perª k»pwn, Pl. R. 537b, Lg. 944b, [Arist.] Pr.
862 b 4, al.) but not preferable.
11 kaª n gräi † aÉto±† jak¦n ywn dª la e« tn cÅtran mbalÜn
brwton poi¦ai: why he should be making lentil soup ‘in the country’ or
‘on his farm’ (II.12n.) rather than indoors is unclear; wherever he is, we do not
expect him to be making it for his children (to whom aÉto± would have to
refer). n gräi would have point if he was making it for people working on his
farm: cf. IV.3 to± par ì aËtäi rgazomnoi miqwto± n gräi. Since lentils
were cheap (Pritchett 191 ; cf. XXX.18), jak¦ was the poor man’s soup (Ar.
Pl. 1004; Wilkins, Boastful Chef 13–16, Dalby 194) and might appropriately be
served to farm-workers. So aÉto± might conceal a participle, to be taken with
n gräi. Alternatively, aÉt» (Casaubon),71 suggesting that he has to make his
own soup, because, being in the country, he has no cook. aÉt<¼ miqwt>o±
(an unpublished conjecture of Stefanis) gives it further point. Or the text may
be lacunose, with kaª n gräi the beginning of a lost sentence, in which the
soup had no part. Casaubon proposed deletion of n gräi in the copy of his
1599 edition in the British Library (see the Introduction, p. 54 n. 172).
The expression jak¦n yein recurs in Pherecr. 26.1, Ar. fr. 165, Stratt. 47.2,
Antiph. 171, Men. Karch. fr. 1 Arnott, Sandbach (226 Koerte), Timo SH 787,
Hp. Mul. 90 (8.218 Littré). For yein, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.102–3; salt,
IX.3n.; cÅtra, X.5n. For the general sense, R. L. Stevenson, The Beach of
Falesá (a short story), ‘She [a native] got round with the salt-box, which she
considered an extra European touch, and turned my stew into sea-water.’
12 kaª Ìonto toÓ Di»: cf. XVII.4 Ìei (sc. ZeÅ), III.3 e« poieien ¾ ZeÆ
Ìdwr ple±on. Contrast Ìonto and Ìanto (without toÓ Di») CP 3.6.1,
3.22.2, 4.14.3, Sign. 51, Ar. V. 774, X. HG 1.1.16, Arist. SE 167 b 7, Mete. 358a 25,
360b 30. Zeus as subject of Ìein belongs to poetry or popular speech (H. Il.
71 Not in any ms. (C. Landi, SIFC 8 (1900) 92, Stefanis (1994a) 120 n. 87).
339
COMMENTARY
12.25, Od. 14.457, Hes. Op. 488, Alc. 338.1, Thgn. 25–6, Cratin. 131, Pherecr.
137.6, Ar. Nu. 1279–80, Men. Mis. 50–1, 55–6 Arnott (p. 353 2 Sandbach), PCG
adesp. 728, Theoc. 4.43, Herod. 7.46, PMG 854); in prose the name is normally
absent (Hdt. 3.125.4 and Arist. Ph. 198b 18 are exceptional). Occasionally, ¾ qe¼
Ìei (Hdt. 2.13.3, 3.117.4). See XXV.2n., A. B. Cook, Zeus ii (Cambridge 1925)
1 –4, West on Hes. Op. 416.
e«pe±n “ëë HdÅ ge tän trwn Àzei”, Âte d kaª o¬ lloi lgoui “t¦
g¦”: he says ‘stars’ instead of ‘earth’, using a word which (for the purpose of
Theophrastus’s joke) is the reverse of the right one, a verbal blunder like those
in §7 and §13. Àzei (Coray before Schneider, but Casaubon before both)72 for
nom©zei (AB) is clearly right: similar corruption Eup. 176.1, Hp. Epid. 5.63.4
(5.242 Littré),73 Macho 185.74 ¡dÆ Àzein is a common expression: e.g. IV.2,
CP 6.5.2, 6.11.4, Ar. Th. 254, Pl. 1020, Pl. Hp.Ma. 299a, Arist. EE 1231 a 11.
Because o¬ lloi must use the right word, p©h (AB) must be replaced by
t¦ g¦ (Schneider 1799, before J. G. Schweighäuser75 ap. J. Schweighäuser,
Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas 7 (Stuttgart 1805) 682–3). g¦ is shown
to be the right word by Hdt. 3.113.1 p»zei . . . t¦ cÛrh t¦ ìArab©h
qepion Þ ¡dÅ, Cratin.Iun. 1.1 –2 nqume± d t¦ g¦ Þ glukÆ | Àzei . . .;
(cf. Antiph. 41.3 eÉÛdh . . . tn g¦n), Cic. de Orat. 3.99 magis laudari quod
terram (Lambinus, Plin. Nat. 13.21, 17.38: ceram codd.) quam quod crocum olere
(sapere Plin.) uideatur, Mart. 3.65.7 gleba quod (sc. fragrat) aestiuo leuiter cum spargitur
imbre. See also (for the reason why rain makes the earth fragrant) CP 6.17.6,
[Arist.] Pr. 906a 35–b 34, Plin. Nat. 17.39; contrast X. Cyn. 5.3. Cf. S. Lilja, The
Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity (Helsinki 1972) 101, 167. p©h is
wrong, because it is wine, not rain, which is associated with the smell of pitch
(resin): Ar. Ach. 190 Àzoui (sc. ponda©) p©tth, Plu. 676b t¦i te gr p©tthi
72 Coray and Schneider proposed Àzei in their editions of 1799; but Coray had devised it
as early as 1791 (di Salvo 67–71). Casaubon proposed it in the copy of his 1599 edition
in the British Library (see the Introduction, p. 54 n. 172). He first wrote grän Àzei (on
grän, later proposed by Blaydes, see below), then added (some of my transcription
is conjectural, since his hand is unclear) ‘quid si dicamus, tän trwn Àzei. Vt sit
sensus: odorem exhalari cum pluit quem ut sibi ingratum alius uocet odorem picis:
at iste stupidus appellat odorem siderum. No(ta) de pluuiae odore.’
73 In the text of J. Jouanna (Budé ed., 2000) koil©h katerrgh Ëgr poll
kak¼n ½z»mena (Coray, before Jouanna: kak poll nomiz»mena codd.)· jwn©h·
teleÅthen. The decisive parallel is Epid. 7.28.4 (5.400) koil©h katerrgh Ëgr
poll kaª la kaª kkodma· jwn©h· teleÅthen. Coray’s emendation, restoring
an expression found in Loc.Hom. 12, 47 (6.298, 346), Mul. 1.38, 50 (8.94, 108), is prefer-
able to kakä ½z»mena (F. Z. Ermerins, Hippocratis et Aliorum Medicorum Veterum Reliquiae
1 (Utrecht 1859) 663, who, like Jouanna, was unaware of the priority of Coray).
74 Adduced by Porson, Tracts and Miscellaneous Criticisms (ed. T. Kidd, London 1815)
276–7. He also commends t¦ g¦.
75 Earlier (1802) he had proposed t¼ tronom©zein (del. Âti . . . p©h), anticipating
others in this deletion.
340
pnte xale©joui t gge±a kaª t¦ çht©nh ËpomignÅoui polloª täi

onwi . . . oÉ gr m»non eÉwd©an tin t toiaÓta prod©dwin ktl., Plin.
Nat. 14.124 adspersu picis ut odor uino contingat (Lilja 117–18); for other uses of
pitch, Olson on Ar. Ach. 190. The spelling p©h is a further indication that
the word is corrupt: the mss. consistently give -tt- for -- (about 30 instances;
exceptionally III.3 qlaan A, XXIII.2 qalhi V), and Theophrastus has
the spelling pitt- in the botanical works (cf. Arnott, ‘Orthographical variants’
210–14). Corruption was facilitated by the common phonetic confusion of h
and i (X.14n.). As soon as we recognise that t¦ g¦ is right, we can see the
point of tän trwn: he says ‘stars’ because the rain falls from the sky, where
the stars are. Cf. William Blake, The Tyger, ‘When the stars . . . watered heaven
with their tears’. grän (Casaubon before Blaydes)76 for trwn ruins the
joke: to say ‘fields’ for ‘earth’ is no canard. The flood of conjectures does not
abate. I forbear to transcribe them.77
For Âte with an adversative nuance ‘when, whereas’, H. Od. 12. 21 –2
ctlioi, o° zÛonte Ëplqete dämì ìA©dao, | diqane, Âte t ì lloi pax
qnikou ì nqrwpoi (P. Monteil, La phrase relative en grec ancien (Paris 1963)
279). For Âte d, KG 2.131, Denniston 219–20. Âte d ka© is regular in epic
(8 instances in Homer, also A.R. 4.1731) and later prose; in earlier prose, X.
HG 5.1.28. Here ka© (om. A) is appropriate; it ‘emphasizes the fact that the
relative clause contains an addition to the information contained in the main
clause’ (Denniston 294; cf. Barrett on E. Hi. 258–60). Âti (AB) ‘because’ gives
the wrong connection; same error XVII.9.
13 kaª lgont» tino “P»ou oei . . .;”: a regular turn of phrase, e.g.
Ar. Pax 704 p» ì tt ì oei gegen¦qai . . .;, Isoc. 15.136 p»ou oei . . .
peripeptwknai . . .;, Lys. 21.8, X. Mem. 2.2.8, 4.2.33, Cyr. 8.2.16, D. 18.103,
50.62, Lib. Decl. 34.18; cf. (mostly with doke±) E. Hcld. 294, 832, Hi. 462–5, S.
El. 266, Ph. 276, Herod. 3.42 (Headlam ad loc.). Though phrased as a question,
this amounts to an awed exclamation (VIII.9n.). Casaubon cites Pl. Poen. 431
quantum Accheruntest mortuorum, a way of expressing an infinite number (more
familiar ways of expressing this follow: 432 quantum aquaist in mari, 433 nubes
omnes quantumst, 434 stellae in caelo) and suggests that a proverbial expression
lies behind the question p»ou oei . . . nekroÅ;. It is unsafe to infer that an
expression which is found only once, in a farcical passage of Plautus, was ever
common or proverbial; nor does the response of the ìAna©qhto require it to
have been.
76 See n. 72 above.
77 Fraenkel and Groeneboom (1901 ), H. Stadtmüller (LZB 54 (1903) 615), Meiser
(1911 ), Meerwaldt (1925), Terzaghi (1958), Stark (1960), Ussher (1960), Perrotta (1962),
P. Bernardini Marzolla (Maia 34 (1982) 143–5), Stefanis (1997).
341
COMMENTARY
kat t ìHr©a pÅla xenhncqai nekroÅ: the name ìHr©a was restored
(for ¬er AB) by J. Meursius, Eleusinia (Leiden 1619) 82 and Athenae Atticae
(Leiden 1624) 181, on the basis of Et.Gen. AB (= EM 437.19–20) ìHr©a· a¬
( ìHr©ai Meursius, ìHria±ai Sylburg) pÅlai ìAqnhi· di t¼ toÆ nekroÆ
kjreqai ke± pª t r©a, Â ti toÆ tjou.78 A gate of this name is
otherwise unknown. Archaeologists have recently proposed to identify it with
the remains of a gate in the north-west of the city wall, on the road to a large
cemetery: J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London 1971) 159 and
Fig. 219, Kurtz and Boardman (§7n.) 94–5, with Map 4, Wycherley, Stones of
Athens 17, 256–7. Whether or not this identification is right, and whether or
not ìHr©ai is the right spelling, there is no good reason to doubt the existence
of a gate with some such name. Defence of the transmitted text of Et.Gen., as
indicating that any gate through which corpses were carried could be known
as ìHr©on (A. P. Mattheou, ‘ ìHr©a· a¬ pÅlai ìAqnhi’, Horos 1 (1983) 7–18), is
unacceptable. It is reasonable to bring Theophrastus into line with Et.Gen.,
by the easy change of ¬er (AB) to ìHr©a (rather than ìHria©a (Wachsmuth
ap. Immisch 1897), a less plausible form, and a less straightforward change
here than in Et.Gen.), another instance of h/i confusion (§12n.), comparable
to XVI.4 (¡räion Dübner: ¬eräon Vc , •ë er- V). If a ‘Sacred Gate’ existed in the
fourth century, it will presumably have been the starting point of the ¬er ¾d»
to Eleusis. A gate of this name is attested only once, in Roman times, by Plu.
Sull. 14.5 t¼ (sc. te±co) metaxÆ t¦ Peira·k¦ pÅlh kaª t¦ ëIer ( ìHr©a A.
Milchhöfer in A. Baumeister, Denkmäler des klassischen Altertum i (Munich and
Leipzig 1884) 149). See further W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen (Munich 2 1931)
139. For xenhncqai, LSJ i.2.
pr¼ toÓton e«pe±n “ í Ooi moª kaª oª gnointo”: there is no advantage in
pr¼ toÓto (Wilamowitz 1902b). For Âoi . . . gnointo, Headlam on Herod.
1.85.
78 I cite Et.Gen. from the note of Theodoridis on Phot. H 239.
342
XV
THE SELF-CENTRED MAN
Introductory note
The aÉqdh pleases himself: [Arist.] MM 1192 b 33–4 ¾ gr aÉqdh
aÉtodh t© tin, p¼ toÓ aÉt¼ aËtäi rkein. He is self-centred, self-
willed, deaf to the advice or appeals of others. See the improved definition in
LSJ Rev.Suppl.; for the etymology, Frisk 1.184–5, Chantraine 138.
The word fits the sea, traditionally unresponsive (E. Hi. 304–5 aÉqadetra |
g©gnou qalh), or the torturer’s iron, wilful and remorseless ([A.] PV
64 damant©nou . . . jhn¼ aÉqdh gnqon). Tragedy associates aÉqdeia
with, above all, Prometheus ([A.] PV 436, 964, 1012, 1034, 1037) and Medea
(E. Med. 104, 621, 1028). Socrates, in refusing to bring tearful children, rela-
tives and friends to court, denies that he shows aÉqdeia, but he fears that his
refusal will provoke the jurors to be aÉqadteroi towards him (Pl. Ap. 34c–d).
The Aeginetans obstinately refused to admit that they were in the wrong: oÎte
uneginÛkonto §n te aÉqadteroi (Hdt. 6.92.2). A father’s refusal to treat
with a suitor prompts the expostulation ë Hrklei, aÉqad©a (Men. Mis. 688
Arnott, 287 Sandbach). Later comedy avoids aÉqad-: apart from this passage
of Menander, only Antiph. 293.4, Eub. 25.1. Cf. [Men.] Sent. Pap. XVIII col.
3.13 (p. 23 Jäkel).
The aÉqdh is apt to lack sense or sensitivity (S. OT 549–50 e toi nom©zei
kt¦ma tn aÉqad©an | e²na© ti toÓ noÓ cwr©, oÉk ½rqä jrone±, Ant. 1028
aÉqad©a toi kai»tht ì ½jliknei, E. Med. 223–4 oÉd ì t¼n ¢ine ì Âti
aÉqdh gegÜ | pikr¼ pol©tai tªn maq©a Ìpo, Pl. Plt. 294c nqr-
wpon aÉqdh kaª maq¦; def. IV n.); to be proud or conceited (Ar. Ra.
1020 A«cÅle, lxon mhd ì aÉqdw emnun»meno calpaine, Isoc. 6.98 ta±
aÉqade©ai kaª ta± emn»thin, D. 61.14 pª mn t¦ pra»thto tapeinän, pª
d t¦ emn»thto aÉqadän; cf. Arist. Rh. 1367 a 38, 1406b 3); self-opinionated
(Hp. Aër. 24.6 (2.90 Littré) aÉqde te kaª «diognÛmona); a misanthrope (Hp.
Medic. 1 (9.206) aÉqdh . . . kaª minqrwpo; cf. X. Cyn. 6.25, the aÉqdh
kÅwn opposed to the jilnqrwpo); in manner, neither mild (Gorg. 82 b 6 t¼
pron pieik contrasted with t¼ aÎqade d©kaion; cf. D. 61.14, cited above)
nor good tempered (Gorg. loc. cit. aÉqdei pr¼ t¼ umjron contrasted with
eÉ»rghtoi pr¼ t¼ prpon; cf. Eub. 25); in looks, sullen or cloudy (kuqrwp»
Isoc. 1.15, unnej [Arist.] Phgn. 811 b 34–5, 812 a 1).
Aristotle (EE 1221 a 8, 27–8) places aÉqdeia at the opposite end of the scale
to rkeia ‘obsequiousness’ (Introd. Note to V). The aÉqdh lives without
regard for others, on whom he looks down (EE 1233 b 35–6 ¾ . . . mhdn pr¼
teron zän <ll> katajronhtik¼ aÉqdh). Such a description suits less
the AÉqdh of Theophrastus than the ë Uperjano (XXIV), or the aÉqdh
343
COMMENTARY
of Ariston of Keos (fr. 14, 1 Wehrli; cf. W. Knögel, Der Peripatetiker Ariston von
Keos bei Philodem (Leipzig 1933) 26–8). Elsewhere, without calling him aÉqdh,
Aristotle describes the man who is the opposite of the reko: he is surly
and quarrelsome, dÅkolo and dÅeri, objects to everything and does not
care what pain he causes (EN 1108a 29–30, 1126b 14–16). This is more like the
AÉqdh of Theophrastus. Yet again, the reko will consort with anyone,
the aÉqdh (like the ë Uperjano) avoids company and conversation ([Arist.]
MM 1192 b 30–5, quoted on def. V).
The AÉqdh of Theophrastus is unsociable and uncooperative, a surly
grumbler. The word has not lost its original sense. But the social context
has changed. What comes over, in one setting, as uncompromising self-will
comes over, in the Athenian street, as pettiness and bad temper. It is undesir-
able to translate aÉqdeia here as ‘surliness’ (Jebb, Edmonds) or ‘grouchiness’
(Rusten).
[1 ] Definition
pneia ¾mil©a n l»goi does not ring true. phn (for the etymology,
Heubeck on H. Od. 23.97) properly implies the harshness which goes with
inexorability: so, for example, H. Il. 1.340 (Agamemnon, in the eyes of Achilles),
Pl. Lg. 950b (refusal to allow emigration or immigration) grion kaª phn
ja©noit ì n to± lloi nqrÛpoi, Theoc. 22.169 khltw kaª phne.
Similarly the noun pneia: first in A.R. 2.1202 (Aietes ½lo¦iin phne©hiin
rhren), in prose not before Muson. fr. 33 Hense ap. Stob. 4.7.16 (it is pneia
not to be seen by subordinates as katallaktik» ‘placable’) and ‘Periander’
(Hercher, Epist. Gr. 408) cited by D.L. 1.100 (the pneia of a son alienated from
his father). The AÉqdh, although he is prone to say no, is not inexorable (in §7
he gives in, with however ill a grace). pneia better describes the ëUperjano
(XXIV), as Stein observes. For ¾mil©a, def. II n., also [Arist.] MM 1192 b 30–5
(Introd. Note ad fin.). Finally, n l»goi, apt in def. XXVIII, is not apt here, since
the AÉqdh reveals himself not only in speech. Schneider (before Darvaris)
deleted n l»goi. We expect, rather, n l»goi <kaª n prxein> (Zell before
Meier 1834/5) or <kaª prxein> (Hartung before Herwerden); see def. I n.
The definition is cited by Moschopoulos, S S. OT 549 (p. 38 Longo) lgoui
d e²nai tn aÉqdeian pneian ¾mil©a n l»goi.
2 rwthqeª “ëëO de±na poÓ tin;”: cf. XXVIII.2.
3 kaª proagoreuqeª m ntiproeipe±n: cf. X. Mem. 3.13.1 ½rgizomnou . . .

pot tino Âti proeipÛn tina ca©rein oÉk ntiproerrqh, [Arist.] MM
1192 b 30–5 (Introd. Note ad fin.), V.2n., XXIV.6n., Oakley on Liv. 9.6.12.
344
X V: T H E S E L F - C E N T R E D M A N
4 <kaª> pwlän ti m lgein to± Ýnoumnoi p»ou n podo±to ll ì

rwtn t© eËr©kei: refusal to name a price breaks the unwritten rules of
bargaining or haggling (X.7n., Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 194; cf.
Herod. 7.64–8). For the contrast between pwle±n and pod©doqai, X.7n. For
potential opt. in indirect question, KG 2.234–5, Schwyzer 2.327–8, Goodwin
§681. For eËr©kei, X. Oec. 2.3 p»on n pr¼ qeän oei, å Ûkrate, jh,
eËre±n t ktmata pwloÅmena; (LSJ v.1).
5 kaª † to± timäi kaª pmpouin e« t ort: it is generally assumed that
this refers to the custom of sending presents of food to friends after a feast
(XVII.2 pote©lanto mer©da toÓ j©lou, Ar. Ach. 1049–50 pemy t© oi
numj©o tautª kra | k tän gmwn, Men. Sam. 403–4 pmyw d geÅaqai
katak»ya to± j©loi | t¼ kÛidion, Ephipp. 15.11 pntw kr ì ¡m±n ti.::
p»ter ì pemy ti;, X. HG 4.3.14, Plu. Ages. 17.5, Arat. 15.1, Them. 5.1 ;
P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Munich 3 1920) 106, F. T. van Straten,
Hierà Kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden etc.
1995) 153). In this connection pmpein is regular (cf. XXX.19); and timn might
be suitable, as indicating the sender’s esteem for the recipient (X. Cyr. 8.2.4
t©ma d tän o«ketän p¼ t¦ trapzh ¾p»te tin paineie . . . e« d kaª
qerapeÅeqa© tina boÅloito tän j©lwn Ëp¼ pollän, kaª toÅtoi pempen
p¼ trapzh · kaª nÓn gr ti o³ n ¾räi pemp»mena p¼ t¦ bailw
trapzh, toÅtou pnte mllon qerapeÅoui, nom©zonte aÉtoÆ nt©mou
e²nai, Hier. 8.3 qÅa . . . timhtw). Hence ‘Those who send him presents with
their compliments at feast-tide’ (Jebb), ‘If people honor him by sending him
some of the food on a festival day’ (Rusten). But there are two difficulties. First,
the text does not mention food or presents, and pmpein calls out for an object
(pmpoui <dära> or <mer©da> Navarre 1920). Second, e« t ort does
not mean ‘at or on the festivals’ but ‘to or for the festivals’ (XXVII.4n.), and the
article shows that this means the famous public festivals. Perhaps we should
be thinking not of food-parcels for uninvited guests but rather of contributions
made to public festivals, in the form of liturgies, such as the tribal banquet
at the Panathenaea and City Dionysia (XXIII.6n., P. Schmitt Pantel, La cité
au banquet (Paris 1992) 121 –31, Parker, Athenian Religion 103); cf. Lys. 32.21 –2,
expenditure e« DionÅia and e« t lla ort kaª qu©a, D. 1.20 lam-
bnein (sc. crmata) e« t ort, XXVII.4n. But the point of to± timäi is
then unclear, and pmpouin still needs an object. Perhaps the text is lacunose.
e«pe±n Âti oÉk n gnoito did»mena† : the words appear to be lacunose,
and we do not know what sense to look for. No suggestion carries any con-
viction: g- <t> dedogmna Needham, geÅoito didomnwn Bernhard 1748
(ap. Reiske (1783) 275), geÅoito didomnou Reiske 1748 (Briefe 230; cf. 360),
geÅoito dedomnou Reiske 1757, loito (or g ì loito) d- Coray, dcoito d- Dar-
varis (before Petersen and Mey), g- ¡domnwi Kayser, geÅoito tän didomnwn
345
COMMENTARY
Herwerden, geÅaito tän didomnwn Cobet 1874, ge doito didomnwn

Giesecke, g- <nti>did»mena Diels, <pro±ka> d- Navarre 1920 (<pro±ka
t> 1924), <pro±ka> g- <t> d- Edmonds 1923, t© for Âti M. Schmidt,
oÉdn for oÉk Ussher. Jackson (Marginalia Scaenica 233) proposed did»mena <t
podid»mena>, citing Eust. Il. 62.4 (1.99.5–6 van der Valk) dÛein . . . jhin,
kou©w dhlad, oÉ mn podÛein, dhlon»ti kou©w, and supposing (as
Coray had supposed) an allusion to the remark of Demosthenes that Philip
had no right to ‘give’, only to ‘give back’, Halonnesus to Athens: Aeschin. 3.83
phg»reue m lambnein, e« d©dwin ll m pod©dwi, perª ullabän dia-
jer»meno. Ath. 223d–224b cites the comedians who picked up this mot: Alex.
7, 212, Anaxil. 8, Antiph. 167 (Konstantakos 140–1), Timocl. 12. In this case
the AÉqdh would be claiming that gifts offered were not true gifts, because
they were given reluctantly or properly belonged to the recipient, not to the
giver. It is not clear (Jackson does not explain; nor does Steinmetz, who accepts
the conjecture) how such a claim would be suited to context or character.
6 kaª oÉk cein uggnÛmhn oÎte täi † pÛanti† aËt¼n kou©w oÎte
täi ßanti oÎte täi mbnti: perhaps oÉk <n> cein (VI.9n.). pÛanti
(‘push away’) does not aptly describe an involuntary action, nor can it
coexist with the following ßanti. The sentence closely resembles Sen.
Ben. 6.9.1 num quid est iniquius homine qui eum odit a quo in turba calcatus
aut respersus aut quo nollet impulsus est? It would be appropriate to replace
pÛanti by a word corresponding to respersus. But no suitable word has
been found: not çupÛanti (Foss 1858),79 since active use with acc. of per-
son is barely justified by H. Od. 6.59 (e¯mata) çerupwmna (whence çerup-
wmno, of things not persons, Hp. Mochl. 33 (4.374 Littré), Mul. 1.66,
2.110, 186 (8.140, 236, 368)); nor trÛanti (Reiske 1757), pa©anti (Coray),
ptÅanti (Darvaris), crÛanti (Ast), t©anti or timanti (Meier 1834/5),
picÛanti (Hartung), çap©anti (F. Haase ap. Meier 1863). Better than
these would be phlÛanti, even though the verb is not attested before
Josephus. Whatever the verb, it will require reflexive aËt»n (I.2n.).
It is perverse to retain pÛanti and either delete oÎte täi ßanti (Schnei-
der; similarly Diels, claiming for pÛanti an unattested sense ‘push off the
pavement’) or emend ßanti (ranti Groeneboom 1917, yaÅanti Navarre
1920, <rdal>Ûanti P. Groeneboom, Mnemosyne 51 (1923) 365–6, «pÛanti
Edmonds 1929). There is no obvious fault in ßanti. The verb is used, in the
middle, of people in a crowd pushing against each other, ‘jostling’ (Theoc. 15.73
ÝqeÓnq ì ãper Ìe; LSJ iii.2, Olson on Ar. Ach. 24). Here too we may imagine
that the involuntary push is caused by the pressure of the crowd. Petersen,
79 Not in any ms. (Landi, SIFC 8 (1900) 91).
346
X V: T H E S E L F - C E N T R E D M A N
deleting oÎte täi ßanti, substituted ßanti for pÛanti. For mbnti cf.
Theoc. 15.52 m me pathi.
7 kaª j©lwi d ranon keleÅanti e«enegke±n epa ktl.: for rano, I.5n.;
e«enegke±n, XVII.9, XXIII.6, MacDowell on D. 21.101. For epa (e«pÛn AB),
V.2n.
p»llui kaª toÓto t¼ rgÅrion: cf. XXIII.2 Âa (sc. crmata) . . .
polÛleke, Antipho Soph. 87 b 54 pol»menon t¼ rgÅrion, Men. Epit. 437
t© tooÓton rgÅrion pollÅei;, Theoc. 10.45 pÛleto coÔto ¾ miq»,
Sen. Ben. 6.4.6 cum daret . . . perdere se credidit, non donare.
8 kaª propta©a n t¦i ¾däi: see on XIX.3 propta©mata.
9 kaª [name±nai] oÉk n Ëpome±nai polÆn cr»non oÉqna: the duplication

name±nai . . . Ëpome±nai (‘endure to wait for’) is insufferable (such jingles
as V.5 keleÓai kalai, XXX.10 kdoÓnai plÓnai, adduced by Immisch
1923, are irrelevant). It is unclear whether Ëpome±nai (if right) means ‘put
up with’ (as III.3, VII.10, XXVII.7) or ‘wait for’ or even a fusion of the
two (something like ‘he has little time for anybody’). For Ëpomnein ‘wait for’
a person (in a neutral sense, as opposed to waiting for attackers) LSJ ii.1
cites only X. An. 4.1.21 di toÓt» e oÉc Ëpmenon. In this sense namnein
would be regular: [Pl.] Sis. 387b ¡me± d kaª cq e polÆn cr»non ne-
me©namen, Th. 1.90.5, 3.97.2, X. HG 6.5.12, Oec. 7.2, 12.2, An. 5.8.14, Cyr.
3.3.23, 8.1.44, D.19.163, Arist. HA 597 a 12, Men. fr. 666. Instead of delet-
ing (Reiske 1749 (Briefe 361) and 1757), we might substitute name±nai for
Ëpome±nai (for n Ëpo- Pasquali). But if name±nai is original, it is not easy
to explain why it was ousted by Ëpome±nai; if Ëpome±nai is original, name±-
nai may be explained as a gloss. At all events, we want infin. -me±nai,
not opt. -me©nai (Casaubon): see §10, VI.9n. For the spelling oÉqna, II.2n.
10 kaª oÎte iai oÎte ç¦in e«pe±n oÎte ½rcaqai n qel¦ai: for singing
at the symposium, Ar. V. 1219ff., Nu. 1354ff., Pl. Prt. 347c–e, X. Smp. 7.1, Amips.
21, Eup. 395; recitation of (tragic) speeches, XXVII.2 çei . . . lgwn par
p»ton, Ar. Nu. 1371 e²p ì EÉrip©dou ç¦©n tin ì ,80 Aeschin. 1.168 Þ n täi
p»twi kiqar©zoi kaª lgoi çei tin, Ephipp. 16.3 çei te kat de±pnon
Qe»dwr» moi lgoi. For ç¦in lgein of tragic recitation, also Ar. Ach. 416,
V. 580, Men. Epit. 1125, Herod. 3.30–1 (ç¦i, speech from tragedy, also Ar.
80 e²p ì Römer: §i ì R, §ien fere cett.: §g ì Borthwick, ¨k ì Sommerstein. Borthwick’s

conjecture (ap. Dover, and CR 21 (1971) 318–20) is not supported by XXVII.2,
where gwn is merely a corruption or conjecture for lgwn in Pal. gr. 149 (57 Wil-
son) (Torraca (1994b) 612). In favour of e²p ì , C. Austin, CR 20 (1970) 21 ; of §i ì ,
R. Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts (Göttingen 1976) 88–92.
347
COMMENTARY
Ra. 151, Pl. Grg. 506b, D. 18.267); of reciting speeches in epic, Pl. R. 393b; of
speech-making in general, A. Su. 615, Ag. 1322, E. Tel. 149.20–1 Austin, Ar. V.
1095, PCG adesp. 1008.8. Cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.4 (Themistocles) cum in epulis recusasset
lyram, est habitus indoctior. For dancing, VI.3n.
Indic. qlhe(n) (AB) must be replaced not by opt. qelai (Casaubon) or
qeleien (Petersen) but by infin., qel¦ai (ed. pr.) rather than qel¦ai (d);
XVI.9n., XXIV.6n.
11 dein¼ d kaª to± qeo± m peÅceqai: ‘not offer thanks to the gods’, as
S. OC 1024 (LSJ i), is the only meaning which suits the context. The words
cannot mean ‘to ask for nothing – even from the gods’ (Rusten).
Diels surmised that the sketch is incomplete, since dein¼ d ka© (VI.9n.,
VII.6n.) might be thought to promise more than to± qeo± m peÅceqai,
and he associated the loss of the ending with the division in the manuscript
tradition after this sketch. He may be right. On the other hand, if §9 and
§10 belong to this sketch, changing as they do the grammatical structure, a
resumptive dein¼ d ka© is at least explicable.
348
XVI
THE SUPERSTITIOUS MAN
Introductory note
In its earliest usage deiida©mwn designates a man of conventional piety: X.
Ag. 11.8 a«eª d deiida©mwn §n, nom©zwn toÆ mn kalä zänta oÎpw
eÉda©mona, toÆ d eÉkleä teteleuthk»ta ¢dh makar©ou, Cyr. 3.3.58
x¦rcen aÉt¼ ¾ KÓro paina t¼n nomiz»menon· o¬ d qeoebä pnte
unepchan meglhi t¦i jwn¦i· n täi toioÅtwi gr d o¬ deiida©mone
¨tton toÆ nqrÛpou joboÓntai, Arist. Pol. 1314 b 38–1315 a 2 (one of
the requirements of an effective ruler) t pr¼ toÆ qeoÆ ja©neqai
eª poudzonta diajer»ntw · ¨tt»n te gr joboÓntai t¼ paqe±n ti
parnomon Ëp¼ tän toioÅtwn, n deiida©mona nom©zwin e²nai t¼n
rconta kaª jront©zein tän qeän. When Aristotle adds that the ruler must
appear in this guise neu belter©a, he hints at the danger inherent in
god-fearing, that it may readily turn into religious mania, paranoia, and
superstition.
Although deiida©mwn and cognates continued to be used in a neutral or
favourable sense (e.g. ‘Zaleucus’ ap. Stob. 4.2.19 (2.125 Hense) deiidaimonän
da©mona ltora, D.S. 1.70.8 deiidaimon©an kaª qeojil¦ bion, Phld. Piet.
col. 40, 1135–6, p. 184 Obbink), from the time of Theophrastus onwards
unfavourable associations prevailed: e.g. Piet. fr. 8.8–9 Pötscher (584d.9–10
Fortenbaugh) gnooÓin d o¬ tn polutleian e«agag»nte e« t qu©a,
Âpw ma taÅthi m¼n kakän e«gagon, deiidaimon©an, trujn, ktl.,
Plb. 6.56.7–8 ka© moi doke± t¼ par to± lloi nqrÛpoi ½neidiz»menon,
toÓto uncein t ë Rwma©wn prgmata, lgw d tn deiidaimon©an, 9.19.1
t¦ elnh kleipoÅh deiidaimona, 12.24.5 nupn©wn kaª tertwn
kaª mÅqwn piqnwn kaª ullbdhn deiidaimon©a gennoÓ kaª terate©a
gunaikÛdou tª plrh, D.S. 1.83.8 n ta± tän Àclwn yuca± ntthken ¡
pr¼ t zäia taÓta deiidaimon©a. A Peripatetic treatise (Stob. 2.7.25 (2.147
Wachsmuth)) defines eÉbeia as the mean between deiidaimon©a and qe»th.
Menander wrote a Deiida©mwn. The man so called sees an omen in the snap-
ping of a shoe-strap (fr. 106), just as in §6 he sees one in a sack of grain nibbled
by a mouse. In both cases superstition is answered by the voice of rationality. In
Plutarch’s overheated tirade Perª deiidaimon©a (164e–171 e) the deiida©mwn
is a man who believes that the gods cause only harm and pain, and (much as
in Theophrastus) sees the supernatural on every hand (165d ¾ d qeoÆ dediÜ
pnta ddie, g¦n qlattan ra oÉran¼n k»to jä klhd»na iwpn
Àneiron). Other diatribes which have points of resemblance to our sketch are
Hp. Morb.Sacr. 1 (§15n.) and Pl. Lg. 909a–910e (§4n.).
349
COMMENTARY
The Deiida©mwn is obsessed by two fears: of the supernatural and of impu-

rity. If a weasel crosses his path (§3), or a snake appears in his house (§4), or a
mouse nibbles a sack of grain (§6), or an owl disturbs his walk (§8), or he has a
dream (§11), or sees a madman or epileptic (§15), he senses a threat and takes
measures to avert it. He fortifies himself in the morning against the impurities
of the day (§2); constantly purges his house (§7); keeps clear of birth and death
(§9); in an emergency calls in professional purifiers (§14). He shows little interest
in the major gods (Athena receives a passing nod in §8), none in communal
religion. He stands in particular awe of Hekate and the crossroads (§5, §7, §14),
cultivates the new-fangled divinities Sabazios and Hermaphroditos (§4, §10),
institutes private worship at home (§4, §10), and enrols in fringe sects (§12).
His actions and his attitudes, taken one by one, would probably not have
seemed abnormal to the ordinary Athenian. What sets him apart is the obses-
siveness and compulsiveness of his behaviour. This is pointed up by a neat
stylistic device. His actions come in twos or threes, or alternatives are avail-
able: three separate stages of purification, one of them perhaps from three
springs (§2); alternative ways of coping with the weasel, one of them with three
stones (§3); alternative snakes and different reactions to them (§4); three stages
in his worship of the stones (§5); three places to avoid (§9); two separate days
for worshipping his Hermaphrodites (he has more than one), and a tricolon
of offerings (§10); a trio of experts consulted, and the question is to which god,
or alternatively goddess, he should pray (§11); alternative partners for his visit
to the Orphic priests (§12); two ways of treating an unpleasant sight at the
crossroads, the second with alternatives (§14); alternative unwelcome sights
(§15).
H. Bolkestein, Theophrastos’ Charakter der Deisidaimonia als religionsgeschichtliche
Urkunde (Giessen 1929), and W. R. Halliday, ‘ “The Superstitious Man” of
Theophrastus’, Folk-Lore 41 (1930) 121 –53, offer detailed comment on the
sketch. More briefly, C. J. Babick, De Deisidaemonia Veterum Quaestiones (Leipzig
1891) 4–19, E. R. Dodds, G&R 2 (1933) 101 –2 (cf. The Greeks and the Irrational 253),
H. J. Rose, Euphrosyne i (1957) 156–9, Parker, Miasma 211, 307, Lane Fox 151 –4.
For more general or theoretical comment, John Smith, ‘A Short Discourse
of Superstition’, Select Discourses (London 1660) 23–37, E. Riess, ‘Aberglaube’,
RE i.1 (1893) 29–93, id. ‘Ancient superstition’, TAPhA 26 (1895) 40–55, A.
Gardner, ‘Superstition’, in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics 12
(Edinburgh 1921) 120–2, P. J. Koets, Deiidaimon©a: A Contribution to the Knowl-
edge of the Religious Terminology in Greek (Purmerend 1929), D. Kaufmann-Bühler,
s.u. ‘Eusebeia’, in T. Klauser et al. (edd.), Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum 6
(Stuttgart 1966) 1049–51, S. Calderone, ‘Superstitio’, ANRW i.2 (1972) 377–
96, D. Grodzynski, ‘Superstitio’, REA 76 (1974) 36–60, P. A. Meijer in H. S.
Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient
World (Leiden 1981) 259–62, H. S. Versnel, ‘Deisidaimonia’, OCD3 (1996) 441,
350
XVI: THE SUPERSTITIOUS MAN
D. B. Martin, ‘Hellenistic superstition: the problems of defining a vice’, in P.

Bilde et al. (edd.), Conventional Values of the Hellenistic Greeks (Aarhus 1997) 110–27.
[1 ] Definition
Stein suggests that this is based on the Stoic definition of deiidaimon©a as
j»bo qeän £ daim»nwn (SVF 3 fr. 408; cf. 409 j»bo toÓ daimon©ou, 411
j»bo daim»nwn). Both definitions are merely banal paraphrases of the word,
ours a little less tautologous than the Stoic, and there is no compelling reason
to associate them. Cf. Hsch. D 544 deiida©mwn . . . deil¼ perª qeoÅ, Suda D
368 deiidaimon©a· eÉlbeia perª t¼ qe±on, deil©a. For deil©a see XXV.
ìAmlei: II.9n.
d»xeien <n> e²nai: def. I n. Omission of n is intolerable (KG 1.225–6).81
t¼ daim»nion: not so much ‘the supernatural’ (Jebb), ‘das Geisterreich’
(Immisch), ‘gli spiriti’ (Pasquali), as (more neutrally) ‘the divine’. See Bolkestein
11 –13, Steinmetz 2.182–7.
2 p¼ <triän> krhnän poniymeno t ce±ra: purificatory water was

often derived from more than one source. Three sources: Men. Phasm. 29–
31 Arnott (54–6 Sandbach) perimaxtwn ì a¬ guna±ke n kÅklwi | kaª
perqewtwan· p¼ krounän triän | Ìdati per©rran(ai), SHA Heliog. 7.7
(Orestes) se apud tria flumina . . . purificauit. Five: Emp. 31 b 143 ¾ mn gr
ìEmpedokl¦ “krhnwn p¼ pnte tam»nta”, jh©n, “teiri calkäi” de±n
porrÅpteqai (cf. E. K. Borthwick, Eranos 99 (2001) 72–4). Six: PMag. 1 (iv–v
ad) 234–5 (1.14 Preisendanz) p»kluon Ìdwr phga±on p¼ zé phgän.
Seven: A.R. 3.860 pt mn enoii loeamnh Ëdtein, S Theoc. Proleg.
p. 2.15–16 Wendel n pt potamo± k mi phg¦ çouin poloÅaqai.
Fourteen: Suda A 3298 p¼ dª pt kumtwn· k metajor tän pª j»noi
kaqairomnwn. A hundred: Ov. Met. 13.953. See E. Rohde, Psyche (transl. W. B.
Hillis, London 1925) 589, Parker, Miasma 226. Comparable ritual washing in
the morning: Prop. 3.10.13, Hor. S. 2.3.290–2, Verg. A. 8.68–70, Pers. 2.15–16,
Juv. 6.523–4.
p¼ <triän> krhnän (for picrwn¦n V) modifies the conjectures p¼
krounän triän (Cobet, Mnemosyne 4 (1876) 292; Petersen had already proposed
p¼ triän krounän for p¼ ¬eroÓ below), p¼ gé krounän (Diels, Hermes 15
(1880) 175, ignored by him in 1909, although it had been commended by
81 It should also be restored (in spite of Hindenlang 67) at HP 1.3.2 nia gr <n>
w pallttein d»xeie (rather than <n> d»xeie (Amigues); cf. 7.15.3 poll d ì
n ti w lboi, CP 1.13.2 ke±no d ì n ti w . . . poreien) and 1.7.2 d»xeie
(Heinsius: d»xei codd.) d ì <n> . . . e²nai. Cf. CP 1.12.3 piqan¼ d kaª (kn Einarson)
taÅthi d»xeien (-en <n> Wimmer) ¾ l»go.
351
COMMENTARY
Babick (above, p. 350) 4), and pª gé krhnän (E. K. Borthwick, Eranos 64
(1966) 106–8). The choicer prep. is p», brachylogy for ‘water from’ (Ìdati
p» Men. loc. cit.), as in perirranmeno p¼ ¬eroÓ which follows; similarly
H. Od. 6.224 k potamoÓ cr»a n©zeto, 10.361 l» ì k tr©podo, Hdt. 3.23.2
p ì ¨ (sc. krnh) lou»menoi, Aristobul. FGrH 139 f 6 j ì ¨ (sc. krnh) . . .
perirrnaqa© jai t¼n ¤rwa (LSJ pon©zw ii.1 ad fin.). No support for p©
comes from pª (p¼ Schneider) qaltth in §13 (spurious), or from H. II.
22.153 p ì aÉtwn (sc. phgän), in a different context, with a purely local sense.
For confusion of p» and p©, §14, V.10n. I prefer krhnän to krounän, both
because it better accounts for -crwn¦n (anagrammatism, like XIV.13 -hncqai
B, -ecq¦nai A) and because Theophrastus (in other works) has 8 instances of
krnh, none of kroun». The numeral is less certain. Three is common in magic
and ritual (Pease on Verg. A. 4.510, Gow on Theoc. 2.43; §3n., §15n.). Three in
connection with washing or purification: Eratosth. 30 Powell, Chaerem. FGrH
618 f 6 (p. 151.18–19), Tib. 1.5.11, Verg. A. 6.229, Ov. Met. 7.189–90, 261, Fast.
4.315, 5.435 (u.l.), Juv. 6.523–4; cf. Plin. Nat. 28.46 (water from three wells as
a cure for fever). It is commended by Men. loc. cit. And <triän> krhnän is
an explicable omission (parablepsy; or g é was overlooked). Same word order
(prep., numeral, noun) XXVI.5 k dÛdeka p»lewn (numeral precedes noun
again at II.2, 3, VI.9, XXIII.5, 6, XXVII.7, XXX.13); but krhnän <triän> is
equally possible, like §3 l©qou tre±. Since, however, three was not canonical,
a different number may be concealed in the corruption.
There had been earlier attempts (before Cobet and Diels) to import spring-
water: pª krnhn Siebenkees, p¼ krnh Schneider 1799, pª krnh or
pª (or p¼) krounän (or cern©bwn) Meier 1834/5, pª ¬erän krhnän Hanow
1860, p ì ìEnneakroÅnou Hanow 1861 (before Edmonds 1908), pª krnhi
Jebb (before Madvig). Other conjectures aim to restore (what is not needed)
a reference to a specific pollution which has prompted the purifications: e
ti cranen Jebb, pidÜn korÛnhn Usener (the mere sight of a crow was not
an ill omen: Thompson, Glossary of Greek Birds 172, West on Hes. Op. 747),
peritucÜn nekräi Herwerden, peª <ntaj©wn n> cräi §n Zingerle 1893,
piqigÜn r©ou Ilberg, picrwqeª <a¯mati> Meiser, trigän napon-
E. Maaß (ZVS 50 (1922) 223), p©crwin <kaqra> Immisch 1923, <pª täi
m> picrwq¦nai Holland 1923, pitucÜn kjori Bolkestein (pitucÜn
kkomid¦i Weinreich ap. Bolkestein), e ti crwnnÅhi Ussher, picrwqeª m»non
J. S. Morrison (CR 15 (1965) 289). Others introduce a reference to the Choes:
<peª> pª Coän §n Foss 1834, pª Coän pou <gen»meno> Foss 1858,
pª Coän prÛi Fraenkel and Groeneboom (borrowing from ti prÜi ¢dh
Petersen). This is inappropriate (Bolkestein 13–15); in any case, ‘at the Choes’
is not pª Coän but to± Cou© (Ar. Ach. 1211, XXII.2n.). The curious conjec-
ture pª grÛnhn (A. P. Vasiliadis, EEThess 18 (1979) 33–8) had been published
anonymously in 1798 (Ast, Schneider 1818, Foss 1858).
352
It was customary to wash hands before a prayer, libation, or sacrifice (H. Il.
1.449, 6.266–7, 9.171 –4, 16.230, 24.302–5, Od. 2.261, 3.440–6, 4.750, 12.336,
Hes. Op. 724–5, S. OC 469–70, E. El. 791 –4; Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 311 –13,
Parker, Miasma 19–20). Here (where nothing so specific lies ahead) he washes
out of an obsessive desire for a general religious purity or to fortify him-
self against impurities which may be encountered later. See also on XIX.5
nap»nipto.
kaª perirranmeno p¼ ¬eroÓ: cf. Men. Phasm. 31 (56) (cited on p¼
<triän> krhnän init.), Sam. 157 perirranmeno (before a wedding). The
prefix peri- indicates literal encirclement by lustral water; but (as with other
peri-compounds in lustral contexts) the literal sense may be lost, so that the pre-
fix merely suggests the ritual nature of the washing or purification (F. Pfister,
‘Katharsis’, RE Suppl. vi (1935) 149–51, Parker, Miasma 225–6). p¼ ¬eroÓ
is ‘(with water) from a temple’, a brachylogy illustrated on p¼ <triän>
krhnän above, not ‘from (with) holy water’ (‘scilicet Ìdato’ Schneider). The
water comes from the perirrantrion, a font in the entrance to the temple:
Bolkestein 14, Halliday (Introd. Note) 128–9, L. Ziehen, ‘Perirrantria’, RE
xix.1 (1937) 856–7, Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 307–8, Parker, Miasma 19, Burkert,
Greek Religion 77, S. G. Cole, ‘The use of water in Greek sanctuaries’, in R.
Hägg et al. (edd.), Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm 1988) 161 –5 (esp. 162). To
join p¼ ¬eroÓ with djnhn (Navarre, Edmonds) is linguistically unobjection-
able (see on IX.4 e« t¼n zwm»n); but there is no reason why a temple should
provide the laurel.
djnhn e« t¼ t»ma labÛn: cf. Sophr. 4.2–4 lzeqe . . . djnan pr
t¼ åa. Laurel, used in purification, also had protective powers: Zen. iii.12
(CPG 1.61) lexijrmakon ¡ djnh, Gp. 11.2.5 nqa n §i djnh kpodÜn
da©mone (cf. 11.2.7), D.L. 4.57 (Bion) kldon djnh Ëpr qÅrhn qhken, Plin.
Nat. 15.135 Tiberium principem tonante caelo coronari ea solitum ferunt contra fulminum
metus. See C. Boetticher, Der Baumkultus der Hellenen (Berlin 1856) 352, 360,
J. Murr, Die Pflanzenwelt in der griechischen Mythologie (Innsbruck 1890) 92–8,
Rohde, Psyche 198 n. 95, M. B. Ogle, ‘Laurel in ancient religion and folk-lore’,
AJPh 31 (1910) 287–311, E. Hoffmann-Krayer (ed.), Handwörterbuch des deutschen
Aberglaubens (hereafter HdA) 5 (1932/3) s.u. ‘Lorbeer’ 1349–51, Gow on Theoc.
2.1, Parker, Miasma 228–9, I. Opie and M. Tatem, A Dictionary of Superstitions
(Oxford 1989) 14, A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi (Oxford 1999) 91
n. 37, J. H. Hordern, CQ 52 (2002) 169. The Pythia chewed laurel. At the
Choes buckthorn was chewed in the morning to keep away ghosts (Rohde loc.
cit., Parker 231, Burkert, Homo Necans 218, Greek Religion 238). The Deiida©mwn
does not chew the laurel, but merely puts it in his mouth. To suggest (Halliday
129) that in the absence of a pocket this is merely a convenient way of carrying
it, just as it is a convenient way of carrying small coins (VI.9n.), is to forfeit
something of the flavour of his action.
353
COMMENTARY
oÌtw tn ¡mran peripate±n: this shows that these purificatory activities
are performed in the morning. They will be part of a daily ritual, a necessary
preparation for each and every day. oÌtw is resumptive, after the participles,
‘only when he has done that’, as in §8 (LSJ i.7, KG 2.83 Anmerk. 5, 84 Anmerk.
6, 7). tn ¡mran ‘during the day’ is acc. of duration, like XXX.14 t¼n m¦na
Âlon and t¼n ìAnqethriäna m¦na (KG 1.314, Schwyzer 2.69–70), as opposed
to the morning, when the purificatory rituals were performed. We do not want
<Âlhn> tn ¡mran (Herwerden), which appears in §10.
3 Prometheus introduced the art of interpreting nod©ou umb»lou ([A.] PV

487); cf. Ar. Au. 721, X. Mem. 1.1.2–4, Ap. 13. An encounter on leaving home
was always a potential omen: Ar. Ra. 196 omoi kakoda©mwn, täi xuntucon
xiÛn;. For various animals to be avoided on the road, Hor. Carm. 3.27.1 –5,
J. C. Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: A Study in Survivals
(Cambridge 1910) 306–8.
kaª tn ¾d»n, n paradrmhi gal¦, m pr»teron poreuq¦nai: since
T. always places n (or e«) at the head of a clause, punctuate (as Duport, and
perhaps he alone) with a comma after tn ¾d»n. Same word order (conditional
clause interposed between accus. and verb) XX.10 taÅthn (aÉtn V), n
keleÅwin, ¾ pa± mteii. For ¾d¼n . . . poreuq¦nai, XXII.9 tn kÅklwi
okade poreuq¦nai (XIII.6n.), Pl. R. 328e, 506c, Lg. 810e, Isoc. 1.5, 19, X. HG
4.2.8, Mem. 3.13.6, 4.2.23, An. 4.7.27, 6.6.38, Cyr. 1.3.14, 5.2.22, Men. Epit.
559–60, Philem. 77.5–6 (KG 1.312–13, Schwyzer 2.69).
The gal¦ has been identified as weasel, ferret, marten, or domesticated
polecat: O. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt 1 (Leipzig 1909) 164–71, Gow on Theoc.
15.28, id. CQ 17 (1967) 195–7, D. Engels, Classical Cats: The Rise and Fall of the
Sacred Cat (London and New York 1999) 66–70. It caught mice (Ar. Pax 795–6,
Babr. 27.4; cf. Ar. V. 1182, Arist. HA 609b 28–30). Being malodorous (Ar. Ach.
255–6, Pl. 693) and thievish (Semon. 7.55, Ar. V. 363, Pax 1151, Th. 559, Ec. 924,
Herod. 7.89–90, Plu. 519d, Luc. Pisc. 34), it was no pet. See further Lawson
(above) 327–8, E. K. Borthwick, CQ 18 (1968) 200–6, S. Benton, CR 19 (1969)
260–3. The view (Keller, Gow) that there were few cats in classical Athens (so
that the gal¦ was the primary mouser) is no longer tenable. See (in addition
to Benton and Engels) H. Lloyd-Jones, Females of the Species: Semonides on Women
(London 1975) 76–7, D. Woysch-Méautis, La représentation des animaux et des êtres
fabuleux sur les monuments funéraires grecs de l’époque archaı̈que à la fin du IVe siècle av.
J.-C. (Lausanne 1982) 65–7, Hopkinson on Call. Cer. 110.
For the gal¦ in this connection, Ar. Ec. 791 –2 (it is ominous) e« . . . diixeien
gal¦, Pythag.Symb. (F. W. A. Mullach, Fr.Philos.Gr. 1 (Paris 1860) 510.4) mustela
e transuerso offensa redeundum, proverbial gal¦n cei, of bad luck (Diogenian.
iii.84 (CPG 1.230)), W. Congreve, Love for Love II.i ‘I stumbl’d coming down
stairs and met a weasel; bad omens those.’ See T. S. Duncan, ‘The weasel in
354
religion, myth and superstition’, WUS 12 (1924) 33–66 (esp. 54–8), Halliday
(Introd. Note) 132, HdA 9 (1938/41) s.u. ‘Wiesel’ 578–600, Opie and Tatem
(on §2 djnhn) 431 .
paradrmhi (c1 , Sylburg) ‘runs past (across the road)’ is the most natural
correction for peridrmhi (V); cf. Plu. 519d Àyon gal¦ paradramoÅh
arouin k mou (Borthwick, Eranos 64 (1966) 108–9); confusion of para- and
peri-, IV.13n. Not Ëper- (Pauw), which would mean ‘run beyond’, not ‘run
over’.
w <n> diexlqhi ti: ‘until someone traverses it’, sc. tn ¾d»n (Pl. Lg.
822a ¾d¼n . . . diexrcetai, X. Cyr. 4.3.22 ¾d¼n . . . dielqe±n), the ground between
him and where the animal passed. This person will take on himself the harm
portended (Halliday 132–3). With w and subj. Theophrastus always has n:
II.5, XVIII.9 (conj.), XX.4, XXX.10, and many instances in the other works
(Müller (1874) 62); w without n is found only in poetry and later prose (KG
2.449–50, Schwyzer 2.650, Goodwin §620), in Attic inscriptions not before
the second century bc (Meisterhans 251). It was added here by Fischer, not
Cobet; other instances of its omission, §1 n., §9n., XVIII.6, and on VI.9 oÉk
podokimzein. For pr»teron . . . w (n), LSJ pr»tero a.iv.
£ l©qou tre± Ëpr t¦ ¾doÓ diablhi: for ‘three’ in magic and ritual,
§2n.; three stones, Petr. 131.5 ter . . . lapillos conicere in sinum, Col. Arb. 23.2,
Pall. 4.10.2 (Maced.Cons. AP 5.244(245).3, cited in this connection by G. A.
Longman, CR 5 (1955) 19, is more convincingly explained by A. Keaveney
and J. A. Madden, JHS 98 (1978) 160–1, and Madden, Macedonius Consul: The
Epigrams (Hildesheim etc. 1995) ad loc.); Ben Jonson, Volpone IV.i ‘A rat had
gnawn my spur-leathers; notwithstanding, / I put on new, and did go forth;
but first / I threw three beans over the threshold.’ Perhaps ‘the action erected
a sort of barrier between himself and the omen . . . it was a rite de séparation’
(Halliday 133); cf. Latte, ‘Steinkult’, RE iii.2a (1929) 2300, HdA 8 (1936/7) s.u.
‘Stein’ 384–8. This is a unique instance of diabllein in a literal sense ‘throw
across’ (unnoticed by LSJ i.1 and Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca 87–8). For
the gen. ¾doÓ, XIX.10 (Pauw proposed acc. in both places), Müller (1878) 14,
LSJ Ëpr a. i.2.
4 kaª pn dhi Àjin n t¦i o«k©ai: for a snake in the house taken as a prodigy,
Ter. Ph. 707 (not Pl. Am. 1108, traditional myth), Cic. Diu. 2.62, Liv. 1.56.4
(Ogilvie ad loc.), Suda X 43 t¼ o«kokopik¼n o«Ûnima· Âti o³on, e« n t¦i
tghi jnh gal¦ £ Àji, t»de hma©nei, cf. Oi 163 (4.627 Adler); L. Hopf,
Thierorakel und Orakelthiere (Stuttgart 1888) 182–94, Halliday 134–6 (id., Greek
Divination (London 1913) 167), HdA 7 (1935–6) s.u. ‘Schlange’ 1114–96. For pn,
II.4n. If n (V) were right, it could not be followed by n . . . n d; style
would dictate n pare©an dhi Àjin n t¦i o«k©ai (Foss 1834) or n dhi À- n
t- o«- p-. Less economical than pn is Âtan (Cobet 1874).
355
COMMENTARY
n pare©an abzion kale±n: for the ellipse of the verb cf. Sign. 17 kaª
qrou Âtan polloª qr»oi janäin Àrniqe . . . Ìdwr hma©nouin· n d
mtrioi, gaq¼n a«xª kaª boto±, n d polloª Ëperbol¦i, aÉcm¼n «cur»n.
There is no need for n <mn> (Bloch before Ussing); VI.9n., Denniston 165.
The pare©a, sacred to Asclepius (Ael. NA 8.12), was handled in the cult of
Sabazios (D. 18.260 toÆ Àjei toÆ pare©a ql©bwn kaª Ëpr t¦ kejal¦
a«wrän kaª boän “eÉo± abo± ”). Formerly taken to be Elaphe longissima, other-
wise known as Coluber longissimus or Aesculapii or flauescens (Keller, Tierwelt 2.299,
Gossen-Steier, ‘Schlange (Arten)’, RE ii.1 a (1921) 548–51, L. Bodson, ëIERA
ZWIA: Contribution à l’étude de la place de l’animal dans la religion grecque ancienne
(Brussels 1978) 75–6, C. Hünemörder, ‘Schlange’, DNP 11 (2001) 180), it has
recently been identified with Elaphe quatuorlineata (L. Bodson, AC 50 (1981) 57–
78; cf. E. N. Arnold and J. A. Burton, A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians
of Britain and Europe (London 1978) 198–9, Pl. 36).
On Sabazios, in general: Eisele in Roscher, Lex.Myth. 4 (1909–15) 232–
64, Schaefer, ‘Sabazios’, RE i.2a (1920) 1540–51, M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion i (Munich 3 1967) 836, 2 (3 1974) 658–67, S. E. Johnson, ‘The
present state of Sabazios research’, ANRW ii, 17.3 (1984) 1583–1613, Burkert,
Greek Religion 179, H. S. Versnel, Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes: Three Studies
in Henotheism (Leiden etc. 1990) 114–18, E. N. Lane, Corpus Cultus Iouis Sabazii,
ii: The Other Monuments and Literary Evidence (Leiden 1985) 46–51, iii: Conclusions
(1989) esp. 4, Parker, Athenian Religion 159, 194, R. Gicheva, LIMC viii.1 (1997)
1068–71, S. A. Takacs, ‘Sabazios’, DNP 10 (2001) 1180–2. On Sabazios and
snakes, M. W. de Visser, Die nicht menschengestaltigen Götter der Griechen (Leiden
1903) 166–7, Eisele 252–3, A. B. Cook, Zeus i (Cambridge 1914) 392–4, Dodds,
The Greeks and the Irrational 275–6, Nilsson, GGR 2.660, M. L. West, The Orphic
Poems (Oxford 1983) 97, Johnson 1587–8, J. N. Bremmer, ZPE 55 (1984) 268–9,
W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge Mass. and London 1987) 106.
V has the spelling abaz©wi at XXVII.8; here abdion, a corruption
illustrated (not a spelling supported) by Harp. p. 271.4 Dindorf (S 1 Keaney)
u.l., Apul. Met. 8.25, Dessau, Inscr.Lat.Sel. (1892) 2189 (iii ad), Goetz, Corpus
Gloss. Lat. 3 (1892) 290.
n d ¬er¼n ntaÓqa ¡räion eÉqÆ ¬drÅaqai: a dangerous so-called ‘holy’
snake is mentioned by Arist. HA 607 a 30–3 (ti d ti ½j©dion mikr»n, Á kaloÓ©
tine ¬er»n, Á o¬ pnu megloi Àjei jeÅgouin· g©netai d t¼ mgiton
phcua±on, kaª daÆ «de±n· Âti d ì n dkhi, eÉqÆ petai t¼ kÅklwi; cf.
[Arist.] Mir. 845 b 16–32) and is perhaps to be identified with the hpedÛn
(Gossen-Steier 552–3, Bodson, ëIERA ZWIA 72 n. 100). Bodson (ibid. and 89
n. 224) wrongly claims that here Theophrastus uses the epithet ‘holy’ not to
designate a particular species but as a general designation for a snake which
belongs to a god (Srv Ar. Lys. 759 calls the snake of Athena which guards the
Acropolis ‘holy’). By this token the pare©a is a ‘holy’ snake. The epithet must
356
designate a specific snake (presumably the one mentioned by Aristotle), to

balance the pare©a.
The appearance of the snake in the house is taken to be the manifestation
of a hero. Heroes are commonly associated with snakes (Plu. Cleom. 39.3 o¬
palaioª mlita tän zÛiwn t¼n drkonta to± ¤rwi unwike©wan, anon.
in Eup. 259.123–4 ndon met ì ½jw[n | o¬] ¤rwe zwgrajoÓntai). A snake
which appeared on the Greek ships before the battle of Salamis was identified
as the local hero Kychreus (Paus. 1.36.1). See F. Deneken in Roscher, Lex.Myth.
i (1886–90) 2466–70, Rohde, Psyche 137, de Visser 168–9, Lawson (§3n.) 274–5,
E. Küster, Die Schlange in der griechischen Kunst und Religion (Giessen 1913) 131 –
3, Hartmann, ‘Schlange (Mythologie, Kult)’, RE ii.1 a (1921) 508–14, J. E.
Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge 3 1922) 325–31,
Nilsson, GGR i.198.9, Gow-Page on Call. AP 9.336 (Hellenistic Epigrams 1317–
20), Bodson, ëIERA ZWIA 68–92, Burkert, Greek Religion 195, 206, E. Kearns, The
Heroes of Attica (BICS Suppl. 57, 1989) 53; for the iconography, E. Mitropoulou,
Deities and Heroes in the Form of Snakes (Athens 1977). Plato condemned the
establishment of domestic shrines (¬er) in response to visions and dreams (Lg.
909e–910e). On domestic ¡räia see J. S. Rusten, HSCPh 87 (1983) 289–97.
For the corruption of ¡räion to ¬eräon (Vc , •ë er- V), X.14n.
5 kaª tän liparän l©qwn tän n ta± tri»doi pariÜn k t¦ lhkÅqou laion
katace±n: stones were often anointed as a mark of sanctity: Paus. 10.24.6
(the Delphians daily anoint the stone which Cronos swallowed by mistake
for Zeus), Luc. Alex. 30 (of Rutilianus, 2nd cent. ad) e« m»non lhlimmnon
pou l©qon £ tejanwmnon qeaito prop©ptwn eÉqÆ kaª prokunän
kaª pª polÆ paretÜ kaª eÉc»meno kaª tgaq par ì aÉtoÓ a«tän (cf.
Cont. 22, Deor.Conc. 12), Apul. Fl. 1 (among sights which detain superstitious
travellers) lapis unguine delibutus (cf. Apol. 56.6), Clem.Al. Strom. 7.26.2 pn xÅlon
kaª pnta l©qon t¼ d leg»menon lipar¼n prokunoÓnte, Arn. 1.39.1 si
quando conspexeram lubricatum lapidem et ex oliui unguine sordidatum, tamquam inesset
uis praesens adulabar, adfabar et beneficia poscebam nihil sentiente de trunco. Similarly
statues: Call. AP 5.146.1 –2 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 1121 –2), Cic. Verr.
2.4.77 (cited on §10 gorai ktl.), Babr. 48.4, Min.Fel. 3.1, Philostr. Her.
2.1 ; cf. XXI.10. This may be relevant to H. Od. 3.406–8 (Nestor’s judgement
seat). See Frazer on Paus. 10.24.6, A. E. Crawley, ‘Anointing’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 1
(1908) 553–4, R. B. Onians, The Origins of European Thought (Cambridge 1951)
280–1 .
For worship of stones, more generally, X. Mem. 1.1.14 (it is a mark of madness)
l©qou kaª xÅla t tuc»nta kaª qhr©a beqai, Lucr. 5.1198–9, Prop. 1.4.24.
See further Reisch, ‘ ìArgoª l©qoi’, RE ii.1 (1895) 723–8, de Visser (§4n. ad fin.)
55–107 (esp. 102–7), G. Hock, Griechische Weihegebräuche (Würzburg 1905) 33–
6, P. Gardner, ‘Stones (Greek and Roman)’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 11 (1920) 869–71,
357
COMMENTARY
Bolkestein (Introd. Note) 21 –3, Latte, ‘Steinkult’, RE iii.2a (1929) 2295–2305,

HdA 8 (1936/7) s.u. ‘Stein’ 396–401, Nilsson, GGR 1.201 –7, Burkert, Greek
Religion 72, id. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley etc.
1979) 40–2, C. A. Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient
Greek Myth and Ritual (New York and London 1992) 5–6, U. Kron, ‘Heilige
Steine’, in H. Froning et al. (edd.), Kotinos: Festschrift für Erika Simon (Mainz 1992)
56–70, K. Dowden, European Paganism: The Realities of Cult from Antiquity to the
Middle Ages (London and New York 2000) 34–8, 58–65.
For superstitions associated with crossroads (as §14), J. A. MacCulloch,
‘Cross-Roads’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 4 (1911) 330–5, HdA 5 (1932/3) s.u. ‘Kreuzweg’
516–29, Th. Hopfner, ‘Tr©odo’, RE vii.1 a (1939) 161 –6, M. Puhvel, ‘The mys-
tery of the cross-roads’, Folk-Lore 87 (1976) 167–77, id. The Crossroads in Folklore
and Myth (New York etc. 1989), S. I. Johnston, ZPE 88 (1981) 217–24. Worship
of stones at crossroads: Tib. 1.1.11 –12 nam ueneror, seu stipes habet desertus in agris
| seu uetus in triuio florida serta lapis (O. Weinreich, Hermes 56 (1921) 337–45).
Both MacCulloch and Johnston unsafely infer that the stones in our passage
are Herms. The latter cites Anyt. AP 9.314.1 –2 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams
730–1) ëErm tid ì taka . . . n tri»doi. There is little other evidence
associating Herms and crossroads (Eitrem, ‘Hermai’, RE viii.1 (1912) 700–1).
kaª pª g»nata peÜn kaª prokuna palltteqai: although it is
broadly true that ‘kneeling down to pray is unusual’ (Burkert, Greek Religion
75; cf. Sittl, Gebärden 177–9), the posture is well attested in literature and art
(A. Delatte, ‘Le baiser, l’agenouillement et le prosternement de l’adoration
(prokÅnhi) chez les Grecs’, BAB 37 (1951) 423–50 (433 on this passage),
F. T. van Straten, ‘Did the Greeks kneel before their Gods?’, BABesch 49 (1974)
158–89, E. Mitropoulou, Kneeling Worshippers in Greek and Oriental Literature and
Art (Athens 1975), S. Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford 1997) 190). Here it
is natural, since the stones are on the ground. The verb prokune±n connotes
‘worship’, often with no indication what form the worship takes. It is often
associated with kneeling or prostration, especially when applied to the wor-
ship paid by orientals to their rulers (e.g. Hdt. 7.136.1 prokunein baila
prop©ptonta, E. Or. 1507; E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition
through Tragedy (Oxford 1989) 96–7). Sometimes it connotes a reverential kiss,
and this may be offered in a kneeling or prostrate posture, when the cir-
cumstances call for it (S. Ph. 1408 prokÅa cq»na; cf. H. Od. 4.522 kÅnei
pt»meno ¥n patr©da, 5. 463 = 13.354; Fraenkel on A. Ag. 503). What it
does not connote here (or perhaps anywhere before the Roman period) is ‘the
gesture of a kiss . . . made by raising a hand to one’s lips’ (Burkert, Greek Religion
75; similarly Sittl, Gebärden 181 –3, Neil on Ar. Eq. 156, W. Kroll, ‘Kuß’, RE
Suppl. v (1931) 518–19). If he kisses the stones, as well he may, he uses his lips.
Full and excellent discussion of prokÅnhi in Bolkestein 21 –39 and Delatte;
see also van Straten, esp. 159, Pulleyn 191 –4.
358
6 kaª n mÓ qÅlakon lj©twn diatrghi: cf. Clem.Al. Strom. 7.24.1 –5
e«k»tw to©nun deiida©mone . . . pnta hme±a ¡goÓntai e²nai t
umba©nonta kaª kakän atia· n mÓ . . . diatrghi qÅlakon (Porson:
lukqion cod.) ktl. (PCG adesp. 141) . . . t© d kaª qaumat¼n e« ¾ mÓ, jhªn ¾
B©wn (fr. 31 Kindstrand), t¼n qÅlakon ditragen, oÉc eËrÜn Âti jghi; toÓto
gr §n qaumat¼n e«, ãper ìArke©lao pa©zwn nece©rei, t¼n mÓn ¾ qÓlax
katjagen. A story of mice eating iron and gold was recorded by Theophrastus
(Phot. Bibl. 528a 33–6 = fr. 174.8 Wimmer, 359a.52–4 Fortenbaugh; Plin. Nat.
8.222 = 359c Fortenbaugh). Shields gnawed by mice portended the Social War
(Cic. Diu. 1.99, 2.59, Plin. Nat. 8.221). Other mouse-portents: Hopf (§4n. init.)
64–6, N. W. Thomas, ‘Animals (Mouse)’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 1 (1908) 523–4, Lawson
(§3n.) 328, Pease on Cic. Diu. 1.99, Steier, ‘Maus’, RE xiv.2 (1930) 2405–8, HdA
6 (1934/5) s.u. ‘Maus’ 31 –60, Faraone (§5n.) 42–3, C. Hünemörder, ‘Maus’,
DNP 7 (1999) 1058.
ljita ‘groats’, of wheat or (mostly, by the fourth century) barley (L. A.
Moritz, CQ 43 (1949) 113–17, R. Renehan, Greek Lexicographical Notes (Göttingen
1975) 23–4, Pellegrino 129–30, Sens and Olson on Archestr. 5.7, Dalby 46–7),
are carried and stored in a qÅlako (Hdt. 3.46.2, Ar. Ec. 819–20, Pl. 763,
Stone, Costume 249–50; see also on V.5 pleku). The expression qÅlakon
lj©twn (cd: -thn V) is like Pl. Tht. 161 a l»gwn tin qÅlakon, P.Cair.Zen.
59069 (iii bc) 7 dorkadwn qulkion, 18–19 qÅlako dorkadwn traglwn,
H. Od. 2.340 p©qoi onoio (3.51, al., dpa, 5.265, al., k»), X. HG 1.7.11
teÓco lj©twn, Cyr. 2.4.18 maxai ©tou, Crobyl. 2 kjhn . . . tina | tän
caritän, Timocl. 35 kjhn | qermän «pnitän (KG 1.333(e), Schwyzer
2.129); also Hor. Ep. 1.7.30 (the uulpecula [nitedula Bentley] creeps) in cumeram
frumenti. For an alternative correction ljith<r»>n (Cobet 1856, 1874) cf.
Antiph. 64 gge±on ljithr»n (u.l. -rion), Herod. 7.71 –3 ti . . . ljithr»n
‘some breadwinner’.
The appropriate verb is diatrghi (Hirschig before Cobet 1856): PCG
adesp. 141 (above), Arist. Rh. 1401 b 16 (mice) diatrag»nte t neur, Ael. NA
17.17 (mice who are able) diatrage±n . . . kaª ©dhron, Herod. 3.76 (mice) t¼n
©dhron trÛgouin, and qulakotrÛx as a nickname for mouse (Hdn. 1.46,
2.37, Hsch. Q 850, S H. Il. 2.755); Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca 287–90.
diajghi (V) is a verb applied by T. to grubs eating through fruit (HP 4.14.10,
7.13.3, CP 5.10.1), frost through earth (CP 3.20.7), salt through plants (CP
6.10.1); to mice only by Str. 13.1.48 (eating leather), Plu. Marc. 28.3, Sull. 7.5
(gold). Cobet proposed -trag- for -jag- in these last two passages.
pr¼ t¼n xhghtn lqÜn rwtn t© cr poie±n: the xhght was an
official adviser on problems of pollution and purification (Wyse on Is. 8.39,
F. Jacoby, Atthis (Oxford 1949) 8–51, J. H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders of
the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Baltimore 1950) 24–52, 135, H. Bloch, AJPh 74
(1953) 407–18, Nilsson, GGR 1.636–7, D. M. MacDowell, Athenian Homicide
359
COMMENTARY
Law (Manchester 1963) 11 –16, R. S. J. Garland, ABSA 79 (1984) 82–3, 114–15,

Parker, Athenian Religion 220, A. Chaniotis, ‘Exegetai’, DNP 4 (1998) 339). The
language is comparable to Pl. Euthphr. 4c peu»menon toÓ xhghtoÓ Âti cre©h
poie±n (about an apprehended murderer), Is. 8.39 t¼n xhghtn r»meno
(about funeral expenses), D. 47.68 §lqon Þ toÆ xhght ¯na e«de©hn Âti me
cr poie±n perª toÅtwn (about a death). The use of recognisably formulaic
language increases the comedy. The official is not consulted about a recognised
subject, such as death, but about a mouse. Stein (199 n. 3) maintains that the
exegete consulted here is not official. The definite article suggests that he is.
Furthermore, ‘A quack always treats his patients seriously’ (Koets (Introd. Note
ad fin.) 35 n. 4).
kaª n pokr©nhtai aÉtäi kdoÓnai täi kulodyhi pirryai: the
verb of speech pokr©nhtai is treated as equivalent to a verb of command
(KG 2.6–7, Schwyzer 2.374–5, Goodwin §99). For kdoÓnai ‘give out’ (for
repair, or the like), XVIII.6 (¬mtion), with infin. XXII.8 and XXX.10 (qo«m-
tion plÓnai), Pl. Prm. 127a calin»n tina calke± kdid»nta keuai (LSJ i.3).
The infin. pirryai is ‘final-consecutive’ (KG 2.16–17, Schwyzer 2.362–3,
Goodwin §770); cf. V.10, XXI.8. pirrptein is not attested before the first
century ad, and then mainly in the sense ‘sew on’. For the sense ‘sew up’ LSJ
and Rev.Suppl. cite Gal. 18(2).579 Kühn (leather) and Hsch. K 85 (fawnskin), to
which add App. BC 2.99 (a wound; po- Mendelssohn), Ael. NA 4.32 (incised
tail). porryai (Casaubon from pogryai cd) has a better pedigree and is
an easy change (p»/p© §2n.). This compound denotes not so much ‘sew up
again’ (LSJ) as ‘sew up (so as to close up) completely’: Hdt. 1.123.4 toÓ lagoÓ
tn gatra, Aeschin. 2.21 t¼ Fil©ppou t»ma, Plu. 526c–d utllein kaª
porrptein ãper ballntion, ¯na tgein kaª julttein t¼ e«blhqn
dÅnhtai, 997a gernwn Àmmata kaª kÅknwn. This would suit here. But per-
haps pirrptein may connote (even more suitably) ‘repair (by sewing)’, on
the analogy of pikeuzein ‘repair’. For the simple verb, Herod. 7.89 qÅlakon
çyai (‘get a bag stitched’, middle imper.). For the rational response of the
exegete, Men. fr. 106 (Introd. Note).
kulodyhi must replace kuto- (V). kÅlo is untanned hide, kÓto
tanned hide; so ‘kneeder of (untanned) hide’ is ‘tanner’ (like burodyh).
kulod-, sometimes transmitted (Ar. Ec. 420, D. 25.38, IG i2 645, ii2 1556.34),
sometimes guaranteed by metre (Ar. Au. 490, Pl. 514 Bentley; Ec. 420 codd.),
should probably be restored at CP 3.17.5, 5.15.2, HP 3.18.5, Pl. Grg. 517e, Plu.
Num. 17.3, Luc. Vit.Auct. 11, 20. See also Headlam on Herod. 3.68, E. H. Rüedi,
Vom ëEllanod©ka zum llantopÛlh . Eine Studie zu den verbalen Rektionskom-
posita auf -a /-h (diss. Zurich 1969) 170.
m procein toÅtoi ll ì potropa©oi kqÅaqai: the middle verb
is used absolutely (‘make sacrifices of atonement or expiation’: LSJ i.2,
J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en Grec (Aix-en-Provence 1966)
360
97) in HP 5.9.8, Plu. Alex. 50.5, D.C. 41.14.6; with dat. of the divinity to whom
atonement is made, E. fr. 912.12–13 (TrGFSel p. 169) t©ni de± (Grotius: t©na d
codd.) makrwn kquamnou (-oi codd.) | eËre±n m»cqwn npaulan, Str.
6.2.11 to± te katacqon©oi qeo± kaª to± qalatt©oi. Cf. [Arist.] Ath. 54.6
kqÅmata ‘expiatory sacrifices’, with Rhodes ad loc. For the verb in general,
J. Gibert, HSCPh 101 (2003) 159–206 (this passage, 169 n. 32). Bernhard pro-
posed kqÅaqai (for klÅ- V) in his edition of Synesius, De febribus (Amster-
dam and Leiden 1749) 243. No other conjecture warrants a moment’s thought
(kloÅ- Lycius before Gale, kklÅ- or kqei- Schwartz, kqeiÛ- Immisch
1897).
potrape© (V), even if we take it to combine the notions of turning back
home (LSJ ii.4) and turning a deaf ear to advice (LSJ ii.2), is much less suitable
in this context than potropa©oi (Wyttenbach on Plu. 149d), whether taken
as neuter (so Wyttenbach took it), like D.H. 5.54.3 potropa©oi tiª . . .
paraite±qai . . . da©mona, Plu. 290d potropa©wn kaª kaqar©wn, 369e
qÅein . . . potr»paia, 497d qeo± potr»paia qÅoui, or as masc., like
Plu. 159f oÉk ìAklhpiäi qÅomen, oÉk potropa©oi. For gods as potr»-
paioi, Jessen, ‘ ìApotr»paio’, RE ii.1 (1895) 189–90, Parker, Miasma 220, id.
‘Apotropaioi (theoi)’, DNP 1 (1996) 899, Huß on X. Smp. 4.33. Neuter is perhaps
more natural, since masc. potr»paioi unqualified is not attested elsewhere
than Plu. 159f cited above; the usual expression is qeo± p- (Pl. Lg. 854b, D.H.
10.2.6, D.S. 17.116.4, Paus. 2.11.1) or to± p- (X. HG 3.3.4, Smp. 4.33, Hp. Vict.
4.89 (6.652 Littré), Plu. 149d, 709a, Alciphr. 3.17.3). potrop (Bolkestein
cl. Plu. Marc. 28 t kqÅei (Reiske: kcÅei codd.) kaª potrop, in con-
nection with the gold-nibbling mice mentioned above) would be acceptable
with the simple verb qÅaqai but is not well suited to the compound.
7 kaª pukn d tn o«k©an kaqrai dein», ëEkth jkwn pagwgn

gegonnai: Hekate (he suspects) has been conjured by magic to attack his
house, which must therefore be purified of her presence. See Halliday (Introd.
Note) 146–7, Parker, Miasma 222–4, Lane Fox 153.
For kaqrai (and §14 perikaqrai) Cobet 1858 was perhaps right to restore
the older form -q¦rai, which is transmitted at HP 9.7.4 (also by the papyrus
at [Arist.] Ath. 1). -qar- is first attested in an Attic inscription of 347/6 bc
(Meisterhans 182, Threatte 2.532) and is transmitted at HP 4.11.6, 4.13.5, CP
1.17.10 (also Antipho 6.37, X. Oec. 18.8, An. 5.7.35 pars codd., Din. 2.5). Cf. LSJ
kaqa©rw, KB 2.451, Veitch 344–5, O. Lautensach, Die Aoriste bei den attischen
Tragikern und Komikern (Göttingen 1911) 213–14.
pagwg is ‘introduction’ of Hekate by magic (the misinterpretation in
LSJ i.4b is corrected in the Rev.Suppl.); cf. Pl. R. 364c n t tina cqr¼n
phm¦nai qlhi . . . blyei pagwga± tiin kaª katadmoi, Lg. 933d n
d katadein £ pagwga± ¢ tiin pwida± £ tän toioÅtwn jarmakeiän
361
COMMENTARY
a¬tiinoÓn (Barrett, Hipp. p. 439: ÞntinwnoÓn codd.) d»xhi Âmoio e²nai blp-
tonti, Luc. Merc.Cond. 40, E. Hi. 318 (m©ama) x paktoÓ phmon¦ cqrän
tino, Hsch. W 265 di jarmkwn e«Ûqa© tine pgein tn ëEkthn ta±
o«k©ai (Salmasius: t¦i ëEkthi t o«k©a cod.: tn ëEkthn t o«k©a
Schmidt); cf. TrGF adesp. 375 ll ì e ì nupnon jntama jobe± | cqon©a
q ì ëEkth kämon dxw. See also Parker, Miasma 348, J. H. Hordern, CQ 52
(2002) 169.
8 kn glaÓke bad©zonto aÉtoÓ < > tartteqai: glaÓx is the Little
Owl, Athene noctua (Thompson, Glossary of Greek Birds 76–80, J. Pollard, Birds in
Greek Life and Myth (London 1977) 39, Dunbar on Ar. Au. 301). The lost verb
will have referred not to its apparition, which was often a good omen (e.g.
Ar. V. 1086, Halliday (Introd. Note) 134, id. Greek Divination 166, Thompson
78), but to its cry, which might be an ill omen (Men. fr. 844.11 n glaÓx
nakrghi dedo©kamen; Thompson 78); cf. HdA 2 (1929/30) s.u. ‘Eule’ 1073–9.
Supplements: <nakrgwi> Foss 1858, <«Åzwi> Diels (cl. Poll. 5.90, where
ÉÅzein uel sim. should be read), <pikrÛzwi> Headlam (on Herod. 7.129,
together with the even less appealing <picwi>), <bauÖzwi> bad©-
zonto Bury, <utäi> Edmonds 1908. Much better kakkab©zwi par-
i»nto (Cobet 1874), which introduces a choice verb, properly to be spelt
kikkabzwi (E. Tichy, Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen (Vienna
1983) 265, Henderson on Ar. Lys. 760–1, Dunbar on Au. 261), and attempts
to account for the omission (the two words reduced to kab©zonto, thence
bad©zonto). But pari»nto has no advantage, in terms of palaeography or
sense, over bad©zonto (commonly, on its own, ‘walk’, e.g. And. 1.38, Lys. 13.71,
Ar. Ach. 848, Nu. 415, Au. 492, Ec. 277, Pl. 952, Pl. R. 515c, Men. Dysc. 150;
cf. XVIII.8, XXIV.4 (conj.), Ign. 36; XXIV.2n., Olson on Ar. Ach. 393–4).
Better, therefore, <kikkabzwi> bad©zonto aÉtoÓ (for the word order,
II.6) or (palaeography aside) bad©zonto aÉtoÓ <kikkabzwi>. There are
many other proposals giving inferior sense: e.g. tarttwntai [ka©] Bolkestein
(glaÓx . . . tartthtai Badham ap. Petersen), <naptäntai> H. van
Ijzeren (Mnemosyne 58 (1930) 41 –4).
epa “ ìAqhn kre©ttwn” parelqe±n oÌtw: the apparition of the Little
Owl, Athena’s bird (Thompson 80, C. Meillier, ‘La chouette et Athéna’, REA
72 (1970) 5–30, L. Bodson, AC 42 (1973) 22–3, Dunbar on Ar. Au. 516), prompts
him to cry ‘Athena is really/rather powerful’, an unusual expression, appar-
ently the type of comparative illustrated by KG 2.305–7 (more sketchily by
H. Thesleff, Studies on Intensification in Early and Classical Greek (Helsinki 1954)
122–4), e.g. Hdt. 3.53.1 kateja©neto e²nai nwqtero ‘rather dull-witted’,
3.129.2 (¾ poÓ) «curotrw trjh ‘quite violently twisted’, Th. 3.55.2
oÉdn kprepteron ‘nothing really remarkable’; cf. VIII.2n. (kain»teron).
A. Ag. 60 ¾ kre©wn . . . ZeÅ and A. fr. 10 kre©one (= o¬ qeo©) may suggest
362
that there is something formulaic in this use of kre©wn. Memnon, FGrH 434
f 1(7) ap. Phot. Bibl. 226a ë Hrakl¦ krrwn (Doric for kre©wn), leuke,
‘H. is stronger (than you), S.’, alludes to Sophr. 59 ë Hrakl¦ teoÓ krrwn §,
so that the object of comparison is readily inferred. If we look for an object
of comparison here, the context supplies nothing obvious: ‘rival divinities’
(Jebb), ‘this omen’ (Ussher, similarly Bolkestein; cf. H. Herter, Kleine Schriften
(Munich 1975) 49–50), the owl (E. K. Borthwick (Hermes 97 (1969) 390–1, with
a far-fetched explanation). On the other hand, to translate ‘mighty Athena!’
(Rusten) is to ignore the comparative altogether. kre©ttw, supposedly com-
parable with ‘di meliora’ (Meineke, Vindiciarum Aristophanearum Liber (Leipzig
1865) 129, before Jahn, Philologus 28 (1869) 7, who also proposed kre±tton),
lacks analogy. It is needless to transpose oÌtw (§2n.) to precede parelqe±n
(Darvaris before Ast). For the form epa, V.2n.
9 kaª oÎte pib¦nai mnmati oÎt ì pª nekr¼n oÎt ì pª lecÜ lqe±n qel¦ai:
for birth and death as sources of pollution, Parker, Miasma ch. 2; birth, M.
Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion (London and New York 2002)
252–4. They are coupled at e.g. E. IT 382 (¢n ti) loce©a £ nekroÓ q©ghi
cero±n, fr. 472.16–17 (TrGFSel p. 116) jeÅgw | gne©n te brotän kaª nekro-
qka, Men. Asp. 216–18, D.L. 8.33 (Pythagoras); Parker 33 n. 2. To visit the
house of a dead friend or relative was a social duty (XIV.7n.), and a vessel of
water at the door offered immediate purification (Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 240–1,
Parker 35). For avoidance of tombs (as E. fr. 472, cited above), West on Hes.
Op. 750, Parker 38–9. Perhaps <n> qel¦ai (VI.9n.).
ll t¼ m mia©neqai umjron aËtäi j¦ai e²nai: for ll . . . j¦ai
see on X.13 ll lgein. It is wrong to save ja (V) by deleting ll
(R. Schoell ap. Immisch 1897) or by changing it to ma (Meineke), which
requires present part. (XIX.5n.).
10 kaª ta± tetri d kaª ta± bd»mai: for the terminology used in express-
ing days of the month see A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (Munich
1972) 59–61, J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year
(Princeton 1975) 8–10, West on Hes. Op. 765–828 (pp. 349–50). The 4th
and the 7th are ‘sacred’ days (Hes. Op. 770 nh tetr te kaª bd»mh ¬er¼n
§mar). The 4th was the birthday of Hermes and Aphrodite, the 7th of Apollo
(W. Schmidt, Geburtstag im Altertum (Giessen 1908) 88–94, 101 –2, Mikalson
16–19, West on Hes. loc. cit., Arnott on Alex. 260.1, W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi
Proverbia 5 (Göttingen 1999) 384). The 4th (as sacred to Hermes and Aphrodite)
is appropriate for the worship of Hermaphroditos. The 7th is less obviously
appropriate. In the belief (insecurely founded) that Hermes’ birthday might
be celebrated on the 27th, Unger 1886 proposed ta± bd»m<ai pª ta±
e«k>i, to be rejected because (i) in the third decad of the month the count
363
COMMENTARY
was normally (perhaps always) backwards from the end of the month, (ii) even
if a forward count were allowable the normal expression would be not pª
ta± e«ki but met ì e«kda. Immisch 1897 proposed bd»mai <jq©nonto>,
equivalent to tetrdi jq©nonto, adducing Op. 797–9, which prescribes avoid-
ance of grief on the fourth day from the beginning and end of the month:
pejÅlaxo d qumäi | tetrd ì leÅaqai jq©nont» q ì ¬tamnou te | lgea
(lgei West) qumobore±n. The festivities may then be seen as apotropaic:
a lavish display of good cheer averts the harm to which (so the scholiast on
Hesiod claims) distressing activities are conducive. But, with a backward count
in the third decad, bd»mh jq©nonto would be the 24th; even with a forward
count, tetr (sc. ¬tamnou) kaª bd»mh jq©nonto would be a cumbrous
way of saying what can can be said straightforwardly (as Hesiod said it) with
tetr ¬tamnou kaª jq©nonto. I assume that Theophrastus specifies 4th
and 7th precisely because these days are associated with the public worship
of major gods. The Deiida©mwn chooses them for the private worship of his
own outlandish and very minor deity. At all events, bdomi (V) ‘periods of
7 days’ must be replaced by bd»mai ‘7th of every month’, like Herod. 3.53
t bd»ma.
protxa o²non yein to± ndon: new wine boiled down to a proportion of
its original volume was called ©raion (sometimes merely yhma, e.g. Pl.Com.
163) and was used by doctors (Nic. Alex. 153, the medical writers passim) and
as a condiment by cooks (Alex. 132.8, 179.6, 193.4, Antiph. 140.1). It was (or
could be made) sweet (Ar. V. 878 ntª ira©ou mlito mikr¼n . . . parame©xa
‘adding a little honey as in ©raion’, Gal. 11.648–9 Kühn glukÆ (sc. o²no) . . .
t¼ ©raion, Poll. 6.16 ©raion . . . t¼n k gleÅkou ¡yhmnon glukÅn). Here it
must be intended for use in a sacrifice: perhaps to sweeten the barley grain,
which was customarily mixed with wine or honey (see on X.13 qulmata).
to± ndon recurs in IV.7. XXX.11 .
gorai murr©na, libanwt»n, p»pana: asyndetic tricolon (§11, V.10n.).
Myrtle-garlands, frankincense, and cakes form a natural trio, since all are
used in ceremonies of worship or sacrifice. Myrtle-garlands: Boetticher (on
§2 djnhn) 445–55, Murr (ibid.) 84–91, M. Blech, Studien zum Kranz bei den
Griechen (Berlin 1982) 318–21, MacDowell on D. 21.17, Dalby 227. Myrtle,
commonly associated with Aphrodite (Blech 250–1, P. G. Maxwell-Stuart,
WS 6 (1972) 145–61, Pellegrino 187–8), is particularly appropriate here, in
the worship of Hermaphrodites. For the spelling murr- (mur- V), Threatte
1.521 –2 (cf. 534–7), Arnott, ‘Orthographical variants’ 209. Frankincense:
S. Lilja, The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity (Helsinki 1972) 31 –57,
Arnott on Alex. 252.3, Sens and Olson on Archestr. 60.4–5, Dalby 150–1.
Cakes: E. Kearns, ‘Cakes in Greek sacrifice regulations’, in R. Hägg (ed.),
Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence (Stockholm 1994) 65–70,
Dalby 68, 288. Myrtle-garlands and frankincense together: Ar. V. 860–2
364
pÓr ti xenegktw | kaª murr©na kaª t¼n libanwt¼n ndoqen, | Âpw n
eÉxÛmeqa präta to± qeo± (cf. Pl. Aul. 385–6). Cakes and frankincense:
Men. Dysc. 449–50 ¾ libanwt¼ eÉeb | kaª t¼ p»panon, PCG adesp. 820.1
yait, libanwt»n, p»pana (Meineke: m»na codd.)· taÓt ì Ýnomai (F. Citti,
Eikasmos 3 (1992) 175–7), Luc. Sacr. 12 libanwt¼n £ p»panon, Ael. VH 11.5
Â te libanwt¼ kaª t p»pana, Alciphr. 2.33.1 p»panon . . . libanwtoÓ
c»ndrou, Iamb. VP 54 p»pana kaª yait kaª khr©a kaª libanwt»n (cf.
Antiph. 162.4, where <p»panon> is a likely supplement; also 204.2–3). All
three together: Porph. VP 36 lj©toi te kaª popnwi kaª libanwtäi kaª
murr©nhi toÆ qeoÆ xilak»meno. Further instances of p»pana in sacri-
fices: Ar. Th. 285, Pl. 660, 680. These passages establish that libanwt»n,
p»pana (Foss 1834) is the right emendation of libanwtän p©naka (V). For
the many senses of the noun p©nax see Pritchett 250–3. None satisfies here.
Not ‘holy picture’ (Edmonds), ‘strop (for the sacrificial knife?)’ (Ussher; cf. HP
5.5.1). And libanwtoÓ (Coray) p©naka, whether interpreted as ‘plate’ (for this
sense, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.46–7) or ‘lump or tablet’ (E. K. Borthwick,
Eranos 64 (1966) 110–11) of frankincense, introduces an impossible asyndeton
(we should need murr©na <kaª> l- p-). No other conjecture (tÅraka Meier
1834/5, m©laka Petersen, m©ndaka Münsterberg 1894) deserves a moment’s
thought.
Here all three items will be used to honour the Hermaphrodite statues:
cf. Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 344 ap. Porph. Abst. 2.16.4 t¼n d Klarcon
jnai pitele±n kaª pouda©w qÅein n to± prokoui cr»noi, kat m¦na
katon ta± noumhn©ai tejanoÓnta kaª jaidrÅnonta t¼n ëErm¦n kaª tn
ëEkthn kaª t loip tän ¬erän, d toÆ prog»nou katalipe±n, kaª timn
libanwto± kaª yaito± kaª popnoi, Cic. Verr. 2.4.77 quid hoc tota Sicilia est
clarius quam omnes Segestae matronas et uirgines conuenisse, cum Diana exportaretur ex
oppido, unxisse unguentis, complesse coronis et floribus, ture, odoribus incensis usque ad agri
fines prosecutas esse?
kaª e«elqÜn ew: a regular pleonasm (Hdt. 4.34.2, 5.51.1, S. El. 802, E.
Hcld. 698, Andr. 876, Cratin. 329, Is. 8.21, Ar. Pl. 231, 1088, Arist. Resp. 478a 17;
also Sign. 17 ew e«pet»meno); KG 2.583–4. r©oi (Schoell ap. Immisch 1897)
for ew is unwanted.
tejanoÓn toÆ ëErmajrod©tou Âlhn tn ¡mran: it was customary to gar-
land statues: E. Hi. 73–4, Men. Dysc. 51 t plh©on NÅmja tej[ano]Óan,
Georg. 8 qeoÆ tejanoumnou, Theopomp. (above) tejanoÓnta . . . t¼n
ëErm¦n, Timae. FGrH 566 f 158, Call. Del. 307, Strat. AP 12.8.8 tejnwa
qeoÅ, Paus. 1.27.1 (Hermes garlanded with myrtle); Boetticher (on §2
djnhn) 445–55, E. Kuhnert, De Cura Statuarum apud Graecos (Berlin 1883)
59–62, 69–71, Hock (§5n.) 51, J. Köchling, De Coronarum apud Antiquos Vi
atque Vsu (Giessen 1914) 12, 37, K. Baus, Der Kranz in Antike und Christentum
(Bonn 1940) 19–23, 30–1, A.-J. Festugière, Personal Religion among the Greeks
365
COMMENTARY
(Berkeley and Los Angeles 1954) 144 n. 15,82 Blech (above on gorai ktl.)
269–70.
While tejanoÓn is the simple and obvious correction of tejanän (V),
‘he garlands the Hermaphrodites all day long’ reads oddly. Perhaps it is the
very oddity which is in point. Or perhaps, after the mention of garlands,
frankincense, cakes and wine, a bare reference to the use of garlands may
be taken to imply an associated use of the other items. To take tejanoÓn
in a wider sense, embracing ‘the practice of surrounding statues to be wor-
shipped with a protective circle of grains or larger pieces of incense, etc.,
before lighting it to ensure the complete purification of the holy object’
(Borthwick, Eranos 64 (1966) 111) founders on the absence of any evidence
that such a practice existed and of any hint that these Hermaphrodites need
to be purified. The text may be lacunose. If so, there is no attraction in
supplements such as these: <pe±ai> tejanoÓn <te> Hartung, <pe±ai
kaª qÓai> tejanän Foss 1858, <pe±ai> tejanän Münsterberg 1894,
<pe±ai kaª piqÓai> Immisch 1897, <qÓai> tejanän Edmonds 1908,
<qÅein> tejanän Navarre 1920. Better tejanoÓn toÆ ëErmajrod©tou
<kaª jaidrÅnein>, like Theopomp. (above) tejanoÓnta kaª jaidrÅnonta
t¼n ëErm¦n. Alternatively <diatele±n> tejanän (Diels), a verb elsewhere
combined with Âlhn tn ¡mran (Th. 7.38.3, D.S. 20.86.3, Str. 15.1.60,
61, Plu. fr. 26 Sandbach), or <diatelai piqÅwn kaª> (Edmonds 1929);
or <katatr©bein>, also found with Âlhn tn ¡mran (Men. Epit. 270–1,
D.H. 5.72.2, D.C. 59.24.5, Lib. Decl. 32.15). There is no advantage in toÆ
ëErmajrod©tou <bwmoÅ> (Schneider), since it is at least as natural to gar-
land statues as altars, and a plurality of statues of H. is neither more nor less
surprising than a plurality of altars.
This is the first literary attestation of the name ëErmajr»dito. Aristo-
phanes (fr. 325), Pherecrates (fr. 184), and Apollophanes (fr. 6) named him
ìAjr»dito: Phot. A 3404 Theodoridis ìAjr»dito · ¾ ëErmajr»dito. para-
plioi d toÅtwi kaª lloi da©mone · ìOrqnh, Pr©apo, A«ak», Gene-
tull©, TÅcwn, G©gwn, Kon©alo, KÅnneio kaª teroi, æn kaª ìAritojnh
mmnhtai í Hrwin (mention of Pherecr. and Apolloph. follows), Hsch. A 8773
ìAjr»dito · Qe»jrato mn t¼n ëErmajr»dit»n jhin. This last passage
protects the name against emendation here: ëErm nod©ou Naber, ëErm
çod©noi Diels, ëErm jrone±n or jr»nw diatr©bein Steinmetz. The earliest
attestation is a votive inscription (init. iv bc) [F]anÜ ëErmajrw[d©]twi eÉxamnh
(J. Kirchner and S. Dow, MDAI(A) 62 (1937) 7–8; for the spelling, Threatte 1.51),
82 On p. 9 for ‘the same Theophrastus’ read ‘Theopompus’. Ruhnken’s change of

Qe»pompo to Qe»jrato in Porph. loc. cit. is wrong ( J. Bernays, Theophrastos’
Schrift über Frömmigkeit (Berlin 1866) 69–70, W. Pötscher, Theophrastos PERI EUEBEIA
(Leiden 1964) 44).
366
probably from the base of a statue of H. The name is also found in an

inscription (iii bc) on a private altar from Cos alongside other minor deities,
ëAl©ou ëAmra ëWrän Car©twn Numjn Pripou Pan» ëErmajrod©t[ou]
(G. Pugliese Carratelli in Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini in memoria di Augusto
Rostagni (Turin 1963) 162–5, L. Robert, REG 80 (1967) 521), and in an inscription
(ii bc) apparently listing sculptures of gods and other mythological figures which
stood in an Athenian gymnasium (D. Clay, Hesperia 46 (1977) 259–67). Other
attestation, before the imperial period, is sparse: title of a play by Posidippus (iii
bc); Titin. 112 Ribbeck (ii bc); anon. AP 9.317.5 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams
3894); lines 15–20 of an inscribed elegiac poem (ii–i bc?) from Halicarnassus
(S. Isager, ZPE 123 (1998) 1 –23, R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus
dem griechischen Osten 1 (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998) 39–45, H. Lloyd-Jones, ZPE
124 (1999) 1 –14, 127 (1999) 63–5), D.S. 4.6.5 (first to give his parents as Hermes
and Aphrodite). But we may include (and cautiously use as further evidence
for garlanding of statues of H. in the fourth century) Alciphr. 2.35.1 e«reiÛnhn
x nqän plxaa ¢iein ëErmajrod©tou (rma Faidr©ou Meineke, implau-
sibly) toÓ (Lobeck: täi codd.) ìAlwpek¦qen taÅthn naqoua (Kirchner
and Dow loc. cit.).
( ëErm)ajr»dito is the Athenian version of a bisexual god worshipped
in Cyprus: Hsch. A 8773 (continuing the above) ¾ d t perª ìAmaqoÓnta
gegrajÜ Pa©wn (FGrH 757 f 1) e« ndra tn qe¼n chmat©qai n KÅprwi
lgei, Macr. 3.8.2–3 apud Caluum (fr. 7 Blänsdorf, Courtney) <H>aterianus
adfirmat legendum ‘pollentemque deum Venerem’, non ‘deam’. signum etiam eius est Cypri
barbatum, corpore et (Seru. auct. ad Verg. A. 2.632: sed codd.) ueste muliebri, cum scep-
tro ac statura (natura Seru.) uirili, et putant eandem marem ac feminam esse. Aristophanes
eam ìAjr»diton appellat. . . . Philochorus (FGrH 328 f 184) quoque in Atthide eandem
adfirmat esse Lunam et ei sacrificium facere uiros cum ueste muliebri, mulieres cum uirili,
quod eadem et mas aestimatur et femina. He will probably have arrived in Athens, like
other foreign gods, towards the end of the fifth century (Jacoby iii b ii 445 n. 8,
on Philoch. f 184). See further P. Herrmann in Roscher, Lex.Myth. i.2 (1886–90)
2314–42, Jessen, ‘Hermaphroditos’, RE viii.1 (1912) 714–21, H. Herter, De Dis
Atticis Priapi Similibus (Bonn 1926) 58–61, M. Delcourt, Hermaphrodite (transl.
J. Nicholson, London 1961) esp. 27–9, 46–50, A. Ajootian, LIMC v (1990)
1.268–85, 2.190–8, ead. ‘The Only Happy Couple: Hermaphrodites and Gen-
der’, in A. O. Koloski-Ostrow and C. L. Lyons (edd.), Naked Truths: Women,
Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (London and New York 1997)
220–42, Parker, Athenian Religion 345, M. Robinson, CQ 49 (1999) 214–17,
L. Brisson, Sexual Ambivalence: Androgyny and Hermaphroditism in Graeco-Roman
Antiquity (transl. J. Lloyd, Berkeley etc. 2002) 42–60.
The earliest surviving image of H. is a fragment (late 4th cent.), found in
the Athenian agora, of a clay mould for a terracotta figurine. The figurine
would have stood about 30 cm. high, and would probably have been the type
367
COMMENTARY
of H. known as naur»meno, a female lifting her dress to reveal male genitals

(D. B. Thompson, Hesperia 21 (1952) 145, 162 (no. 50), Pl. 37; Ajootian (1990)
1.274 no. 36, (1997) 221 –3). ‘The existence of the mould presupposes both a
prototype and a series of figurines, as well as a demand for such renderings of
H. already in the 4th cent. bc’ (Ajoutian (1990) 1.283). The Deiida©mwn has
more than one statue (or figurine); presumably many. This may be, like his
day-long attention to them, a symptom of his obsession.
11 kaª Âtan nÅpnion dhi: III.2n.

poreÅeqai pr¼ toÆ ½neirokr©ta, pr¼ toÆ mntei, pr¼ toÆ
½rniqok»pou: the accumulation of nouns in the tricolon (§10, V.10n.) reflects
his obsessiveness. Professional dream-interpreters do not suffice; he consults
seers and bird-watchers too. Dream-interpretation, invented by Prometheus
([A.] PV 485–6), appears first in Homer (Il. 1.62–3, 5.149–50). Other early prac-
titioners are attested by Magn. 4 (½neirokr©taiin, nalÅtai), Hdt. 5.56.2,
E. Hec. 87–9. Antiphon, a contemporary of Socrates (Dodds, The Greeks and
the Irrational 132 n. 100), wrote Perª kr©ew ½ne©rwn (DK 87 b 78–81). By
the end of the fifth century professionals took fees: Ar. V. 52–3, Dem. Phal.,
FGrH 228 f 45a = 104 Stork et al. ap. W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf
(edd.), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion (New Brunswick and
London 2000) (on a grandson of Aristides). For the mnti (in this context,
one who divines from sources other than dreams and birds) and ½rniqok»po
(also XIX.7), Ziehen, ‘Mnti’, RE xiv.2 (1930) 1345–55, Burkert, Greek Religion
111 –14, M. Casevitz, REG 105 (1992) 1 –18. But the Deiida©mwn is not con-
cerned to have his dream interpreted; he assumes that it bodes ill, and wishes to
discover which god to propitiate. For the variety of measures taken in response
to bad dreams see Halliday (Introd. Note) 137–40, Parker, Miasma 220 n. 71.
For further bibliography on dream interpretation, Arnott on Alex. 274.1 –2,
OCD3 ‘Dreams’.
rwtwn t©ni qeän £ qei eÎceqai de±: a traditional style of question, often
put to gods and oracles. So Hdt. 1.67.2 peirÛtwn t©na n qeän ¬lamenoi
ktl. (H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle: ii, The Oracular
Responses (Oxford 1956) no. 32, J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and
Operations (Berkeley etc. 1978) Q89), E. fr. 912.12 (TrGFSel p. 169) t©ni de± (t©na d
codd.) makrwn kquamnou ktl., X. An. 3.1.6 preto t¼n ìAp»llw t©ni n
qeän qÅwn kaª eÉc»meno . . . wqe©h (Parke-Wormell no. 172, Fontenrose H11),
Vect. 6.3 perwtn t©na qeän propoioÅmenoi ktl., D. 43.66 perwti . . .
Âtwi qeäi qÅouin £ eÉcomnoi ktl. (Parke-Wormell no. 283, Fontenrose
H29), SIG 3 1161 (Dodona iv-iii bc) ¬tore± Nikokrt[ei]a t©ni qeän qÅoua
ktl. (Parke, The Oracles of Zeus (Oxford 1967) 268 no. 15), CIG ii, 1837b (IG
xii Suppl. 200) 19–20 (Pharos, dated early ii bc by L. Robert, BCH 59 (1935)
489–513) rwtn d t¼n qe]¼n t©ni qeän (‘malim qeäi’ Boeckh) £ qei qÅwn [
368
(Parke-Wormell no. 429, Fontenrose H56); further examples from Dodona in

Parke, Appendix i (e.g. 260 no. 3 (late v bc) t©ni ka [q]eän £ ¡rÛwn qÅon[t]e
kaª eÉc[»]menoi ktl.).
t©ni qeän £ qei is protected against emendation by the inscription from
Pharos cited above. But for this inscription, it would have been plausible to
restore symmetry by writing qeäi (which has been wrongly reported from
d);83 not, however, qen (Foss 1858, before Edmonds 1929), or qeai<nän>
(Edmonds 1946), exclusively poetical forms. Symmetrical pairing of gods and
goddesses is traditional and formulaic: H. Il. 8.5 (= 19.101, h.Ap. 311) pnte te
qeoª pa© te qainai, 8.20 (= Od. 8.341) qeoª pa© te qainai, A. Th. 87 qeoª
qea© te, 94 qeän £ qen, Pl. Smp. 219c m qeoÅ, m qe (D. 19.67, Anaxandr.
2.2–3 m toÆ qeoÆ kaª t qe, D. 42.6 n toÆ qeoÆ kaª t qe), Ti. 27c
qeoÅ te kaª qe, Epin. 980c toÆ qeoÅ te kaª t qe, X. An. 6.6.17 qeoÆ
kaª qe, D. 54.41 toÆ qeoÆ kaª t qe panta kaª pa, Antiph. 81.3
qeän te kaª qeainän, 204.2 to± qeo± kaª ta± qea±, Men. Sam. 399–400 to±
-
qeo± . . . kaª ta± qea±, Schwyzer, Dial.Gr.Ex.Epigr.Pot. 794 (v bc) qeo± nqeke
pi]n kaª qea± pai. Similarly si(ue) deus si(ue) dea (J. Alvar, Numen 32 (1985)
236–73, Oakley on Liv. 7.26.4). See also E. Kemmer, Die polare Ausdrucksweise in
der griechischen Literatur (Würzburg 1903) 144, F. Jacobi, PANTES QEOI (Halle
1930), K. Ziegler, ‘Pantheion’, RE xviii.2.1 (1949) 697–729 (esp. 699–700),
D. Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias
(Berlin 1969) 267, Wankel on D. 18.1 (to± qeo± . . . pi kaª pai), J. Wills,
Repetition in Latin Poetry (Oxford 1996) 279–80, Pulleyn (§5n.) 109–10. But t©ni
qeän (not qeäi) is the norm in oracular inquiries, and the asymmetry is of a
kind not uncommon in poetry (E. Hec. 163–4 ti | qeän £ da©mwn, El. 1234
tine da©mone £ qeän; Diggle, Euripidea 17). To delete £ qei (Darvaris, with
qeäi, before Diels, with qeän) or replace it with £ qÅein <£> (Diels) ruins his
fussy punctiliousness.
12 kaª teleqh»meno pr¼ toÆ ìOrjeotelet kat m¦na poreÅeqai:

cf. XXVII.8 teloÅmeno täi abaz©wi, LSJ iii.1.a. Here, since the visits are
monthly, not ‘to be initiated’ but (something like) ‘to be consecrated’, ‘to be
a participant in the rites’ (‘to take the sacrament’, W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus
and Greek Religion (London 1935) 202, admirably; so too M. L. West, The Orphic
Poems (Oxford 1983) 21). And not ‘when he is about to be initiated . . . he visits
the priests every month’ (Edmonds, Ussher), as if he were attending church
confirmation classes.
The ìOrjeoteleta© are itinerant mystery priests offering cathartic ritu-
als and the like, pilloried in Pl. R. 364e–5a b©blwn d Âmadon parcon-
tai Moua©ou kaª ìOrjw, elnh te kaª Mouän kg»nwn . . . kaq ì
83 Cantabr. (4 Wilson) uniquely has qe £ qeä (Stefanis (1994a) 80 n. 29).
369
COMMENTARY
quhpoloÓin, pe©qonte oÉ m»non «diÛta ll kaª p»lei Þ ra lÅei

te kaª kaqarmoª dikhmtwn di quiän kaª paidi ¡donän e«ª mn ti
zäin, e«ª d kaª teleutain, d telet kaloÓin, a° tän ke± kakän
polÅouin ¡m, m qÅanta d dein perimnei. See I. M. Linforth, The
Arts of Orpheus (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1941) 77–85, 101 –4, West loc. cit.,
Burkert, Greek Religion 297, id. Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge Mass. 1987)
33, Parker, Miasma 299–307, Athenian Religion 162. The noun appears next in
Phld. Po. 181.1 –2, p. 400 Janko ( ìOrjeoteletoÓ tumpnwi, disparaging). For
similar formations, F. M. J. Waanders, The History of TELO and TELEW in
Ancient Greek (Amsterdam 1983) §162.
met t¦ gunaik» (n d m colzhi ¡ gun, met t¦ t©tqh) kaª tän
paid©wn: sense demands that kaª tän paid©wn be taken with t¦ gunaik»,
even if the run of the sentence is against it (Usener, who so punctuated, also
suggested transposing the words after gunaik»). The children are accompa-
nied by their mother, if she is available;84 if not, by their nurse. The presence
of the children is appropriate (West, The Orphic Poems 169); but the father needs
a woman to look after them. If kaª tän paid©wn is taken with t¦ t©tqh, the
children go with their father only if their mother is unavailable. To substitute
nurse for mother is comprehensible; to substitute children for mother is not.
Cf. Dillon (§9n.) 154 (right in part).
V has paid©wn (like cd), not (as claimed) pa©dwn: in V’s script paidé is
paid©wn. And paid©wn is what we need, since Theophrastus distinguishes
between pa± ‘slave’ (singular II.11, VIII.4, XII.12, XIII.4, XIV.9, XVIII.2, 8,
XX.10, XXI.8, XXIII.8, XXIV.12, XXV.2, 4, XXX.15; plural XXX.16, 17)
and paid©on ‘child’ (sing. XX.5, XXVIII.4; plur. II.6, V.5, VII.10, XIV.10,
XXII.6, XXVII.13). The only variations are VII.5 toÆ pa±da (children in
general) and XXII.10 paid©on (slave, probably female; I emend to paidrion).
Cf. M. Golden, ‘Pais, “Child” and “Slave”’, AC 54 (1985) 91 –104.
13 [kaª tän perirrainomnwn pª qaltth pimelä d»xeien n e²nai]: com-

parable in structure and phraseology to the beginning of the interpolated VI.7;
deleted by Bloch before Ribbeck 1870. For both perirrainomnwn and p© (p»
Schneider), §2n. The adverb pimelä is trite; but pimeltato (Petersen)
destroys the structural similarity with VI.7. For the sea as an agent of purifi-
cation, Halliday (Introd. Note) 127, Parker, Miasma 226–7.
14 kn pote p©dhi kor»dwi temmnon tän pª ta± tri»doi < >
pelqÛn: the compound jorn (only here in Theophrastus) is often used
84 ‘Observe the irony. Greek wives were seldom busy’ Jebb, forgetting the list of duties
given out by Ischomachus in X. Oec. ‘I see Jebb as misled by the behaviour of women
in upper-middle-class families in his Cambridge’ (Paul Millett). See above, p. 318.
370
of seeing dire sights (LSJ pe±don 1, jorw 2; Borthwick, Eranos 64 (1966)

119). He sees ‘ . . . a man wreathed with garlic <eating?> the offerings at the
crossroads . . .’. Food was left at the crossroads for Hekate, especially at the
new moon, and was sometimes stolen by the poor or by desperadoes flaunt-
ing their contempt for religion: Ar. Pl. 595–7 jhª gr aÌth (sc. ëEkth) |
toÆ mn conta kaª ploutoÓnta de±pnon kat m¦n ì popmpein, | toÆ
d pnhta tän nqrÛpwn rpzein prªn kataqe±nai (S Tzetz. 594 kat d
noumhn©an o¬ ploÅioi pempon de±pnon pra ãper qu©an t¦i ëEkthi n
ta± tri»doi · o¬ d pnhte ¢rconto peinänte kaª ¢qion aÉt kaª legon
Âti ¡ ëEkth jagen aÉt), D. 54.39 koÅw . . . toÅtou (Conon and his asso-
ciates) t q ì ëEkata±a [[kataka©ein add. fere codd., kateq©ein A: del. Baiter]]
kaª toÆ Àrcei toÆ k tän co©rwn, o³ kaqa©rouin Âtan e«inai mllwin,
ullgonta kat»te undeipne±n llloi, Luc. DMort. 2.3. The remains
of domestic purificatory rituals (½xuqÅmia, kaqrmata, kaqria) were also
left there, and these too might be taken (Luc. Cat. 7, DMort. 1.1). See Roscher,
Lex.Myth. i.2 (1886–90) 1888–9, Heckenbach, ‘Hekate’, RE vii.2 (1912) 2780,
K. F. Smith, ‘Hecate’s Suppers’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 6 (1913) 565–7, Th. Hopfner,
‘Tr©odo’, RE vii.1 a (1939) 163–5, C. H. Greenewalt, Ritual Dinners in Early
Historic Sardis (Berkeley etc. 1978) 43–5, Parker, Miasma 30, S. I. Johnston, ZPE
88 (1991) 219–21 .
The wreath of garlic protects the thief from Hekate’s wrath or appari-
tion. This is a natural use of garlic, although not elsewhere attested. Garlic
was believed to have medicinal properties (e.g. Ar. V. 1172, Plin. Nat. 19.111,
20.50–7), and to be a prophylactic against hellebore (HP 9.8.6) and scorpions
(Str. 17.3.11, Plin. Nat. 20.50). It was chewed by women at the Skira festival, to
ensure that men kept their distance (Philoch. FGrH 328 f 89 ¢qion k»roda
neka toÓ pceqai jrodi©wn, Burkert, Homo Necans 145, Dillon (§9n.) 125;
cf. Ar. Th. 494, with R. Seager, Philologus 127 (1983) 139–42). The philosopher
Stilpon violated a taboo by entering the temple of the Mother of the Gods
after eating garlic (Ath. 422d). There is a similar prohibition in SIG3 1042.3 =
F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969) 55.3 (ii-iii ad). Persius
5.185–8 prescribes a triple dose in the morning as a prophylactic against malign
foreign rites. It keeps off the evil eye (Sittl, Gebärden 119, Lawson (§3n.) 14, 140,
F. T. Elworthy, ‘Evil Eye’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 5 (1912) 614), and witches and vampires
(M. Summers, The Vampire, His Kith and Kin (New York 1929) 209, P. Barber,
Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality (New Haven and London 1988) 63,
131 –2). A wreath of garlic is mentioned (in what connection is unknown) by
Call. fr. 657 mj© te kebln | e«rmno gl©qwn oÔlon cei tjanon, and (for a
pun on ç»da) by Ath. 676d. A wreath of onions worn in a dream aids the wearer
and harms his neighbours (Artem. 1.77 ad fin.). Further garlic lore in Murr (on
§2 djnhn) 179–80, Riess, ‘Aberglaube’, RE i.1 (1893) 58, O. Gruppe, Griechi-
sche Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1906) 889 n. 7, Stadler, ‘Lauch’,
371
COMMENTARY
RE xii.1 (1925) 990–1, M. Grieve (ed. C. F. Leyel), A Modern Herbal (London

1931) 342–5, HdA 5 (1932/3) s.u. ‘Knoblauch’ 1 –6, J. Blackwood and S. Fulder,
Garlic: Nature’s Original Remedy (Poole 1986), Opie and Tatem (on §2 djnhn)
172–3, E. Gowers, The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature
(Oxford 1993) ch. 5 (esp. 290–7), R. Vickery, A Dictionary of Plant-Lore (Oxford
1995) 150–1, Dalby 155–6. For the unqualified part. temmnon (Foss 1834: -wn
V) ‘a man wreathed’, II.2n.
He considers himself contaminated by what he has seen. If tän is taken
as masculine (kor»dwi temmnon tän, ‘aliquem eorum qui considere solent
in triuiis [i.e. beggars: Call. Cer. 113–15, Luc. Nec. 17] auerruncandi causa alio
coronatum’, Diels, most awkwardly) or changed to tina (Kayser), he sees only
a man wearing a protective wreath. Such a sight will not contaminate him.
The man must be doing something unholy, and what he is doing must be
stated explicitly. He will be eating or stealing Hekate’s food, or the remains
of household purifications, and these are perhaps adequately designated by
tän pª ta± tri»doi. If that expression is acceptable, we need only a part.
which means ‘eating’ or ‘stealing (from)’. Neither peq©onta nor peq©onta
(both suggested by Borthwick) for pelq»ntwn (p- Vc ) is suitable: the former
means ‘eat off’, i.e ‘remove x from y by eating it’ (as fr. 175 Wimmer, 362a.5–6
Fortenbaugh ¡ ¯ppo peq©ei tän pÛlwn t¼ ¬ppoman), the latter ‘eat after’
(as CP 6.4.7 (zäia, animals) Âtan llo jgwin, teron peq©onta). The sim-
ple verb q©onta suffices (for gen. tän ktl., LSJ q©w 1 (add Chionid. 5),
KG 1.355–6, E. Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome 1962) 105–6;
cf. VIII.3n.); p- could have arisen under the influence of preceding p©.
But it may be better to adopt pelqÛn (cd) and suppose the loss of a part.
before it (e.g. <q©onta> pelqÛn). pelqÛn, while not essential, is apt (he
does go away, to be purified); IX.2n. And corruption of pelqÛn to pelq»n-
twn was easy: gen. prompted by preceding tän; common confusion of p-
and p- (§2, V.10n.), here facilitated by preceding p©. Alternatively, pan-
elqÛn (Hartung), if ‘going back’ may be interpreted as ‘going back home’
when there has been no specific mention of home (I.4n.); or e«elqÛn (§10,
X.12n.).
Others look for the part. ‘eating’ (or the like) in temmnwn (V), and take
garlic to be its object: kor»dwn q©onta Schneider (after -wi q©onta Sieben-
kees), kor»dwn jhmmnon Ast (wrong tense), kor»dwn tiÛmenon Jebb (too
dignified), k»rodon itoÅmenon Schoell (ap. Immisch 1897). Garlic is not
known to have been offered to Hekate.85 Attested offerings are: mag©de (S. fr.
734, Ar. fr. 851), whether ‘cakes’ or ‘trays’, a question disputed since antiquity
85 Writers on garlic often claim that it is. Such claims derive from this passage: e.g.
‘Garlic was placed by the ancient Greeks (Theophrastus relates) on the piles of stones
at cross-roads as a supper for Hekate’ (Grieve 342) which even conflates §5 with §14.
372
(Pearson and Radt on S. fr. 734); cakes with lit miniature torches, offered at
the full moon (Philoch. FGrH 328 f 86, Diph. 27; illustrated by item no. 14 in
LIMC vi (1992) 1.993, 2.657); slaughtered puppies (Sophr. 4.7, Ar. fr. 209, Plu.
280b–c (quoted below on k©llhi £ kÅlaki), 290d; N. J. Zaganiaris, ‘Sacri-
fices de chiens dans l’antiquité classique’, Platon 27 (1975) 322–9, C. Mainoldi,
L’image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce antique d’Homère à Platon (Paris 1984) 51 –9);
rtou kaª lla tin ‘bread etc.’ (S Tzetz. Ar. Pl. 594); ‘fried eggs and toasted
cheese’, offered at the new moon (S rec. Ar. Pl. 596b); certain fishes (tr©glh
or trigl©, Apollod. FGrH 244 f 109, Melanth. FGrH 326 f 2, Antiph. 69.15,
Chariclid. 1 ; main©, Melanth. loc. cit, Antiph. loc. cit.). Even if garlic may have
been included in the food left at the crossroads, it would be odd to single it out
here as the only food which the man is eating. If it is not Hekate’s garlic which
he is eating, but his own, and he is eating it to protect himself, the reaction
of the Deiida©mwn remains unexplained. No other proposal need detain us:
pª t tri»dou (Sylburg) pelq»ntwn Foss 1834, temmnon täi Hartung
(he does not garland himself with stolen garlic), ëEkthi qu»ntwn Petersen,
korodimnon tin Wilamowitz 1884 (cl. Ar. Eq. 494), temmnhn <tin tän
ëEkatän> Edmonds 1929.
Ast (before Wilamowitz) proposed n (for pª) ta± tr-, as §5, Plu. 193f,
D.Chr. 32.10, 36.35, Gal. 10.139 Kühn, Luc. Nec. 17, DM 1.1, and lexicogra-
phers (Harp. p. 224.4 Dindorf (O 25 Keaney), Poll. 5.163, EM 626.46, Hsch.
E 1258); in verse, Eup. 132, PCG adesp. 1025.1, Call. Cer. 114, Theoc. 2.36,
Anyt. AP 9.314.2 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 731), anon. AP 5.303.2. With
p©dhi preceding, the corruption would be easy. But Pl. Lg. 933b has pª tr-.
Alternatively, the presence of p© may point to something like tän pª t
tri»dou <xenecqntwn . . . > (Philoch. FGrH 328 f 86a ap. Phot. A 1389
Theodoridis jrein (sc. cakes) e« t ¬er t¦i ìArtmidi kaª pª t tri»dou,
Plu. 280c t¦i ëEkthi kulkia met tän llwn kaqar©wn kjroui, 708f
o¬ t¦i ëEkthi . . . kjronte t de±pna, Harp. p. 224.2–3 Dindorf (of kaqr-
mata) pojreqai e« t tri»dou).
kat kejal¦ loÅaqai: this expression (or the like) occurs in Hp. Epid.
1.3.13 (2.702 Littré), 7.67 (5.430), Aff. 10 (6.218, u.l. tn -n), Morb. 2.14 (7.26),
Nat.Mul. 48 (7.392), Mul. 75, 123 (8.162, 266), Steril. 224 (8.434). Cf. SIG3
1042.4 = Sokolowski, Lois sacrées 55.4 (ii–iii ad) louamnou katakjala (rit-
ual purification; Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 401). The model is the Homeric kk
kejal¦ (with cw Il. 18.24, 23.765, Od. 23.156, 24.317; cf. Od. 10.361 –2
l»(e) . . . kat krat»).
kaª ¬ere©a kala: not official priestesses, but a more dignified term than
some others which were in use to describe women who performed purifica-
tory or other rites (guna±ke Men. Phasm. 54 quoted on §2, perimktria graÓ
Plu. 166a (gre 168d), pomktriai Poll. 7.188; Bolkestein (Introd. Note)
68–70, M. W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London and
373
COMMENTARY
New York 2001) 92–3). We do not want masc. ¬era (Auberius) or ¬era
(Hirschig before Blaydes).
k©llhi £ kÅlaki: striking alliteration (cf. V.8 Lakwnik kÅna e« KÅzikon,
XXI.9 thl©dion ta (conj.)). It is wrong to suspect dittography ([k©llhi
£] Wilamowitz 1884; [£ kÅlaki] Terzaghi) or to emend kÅlaki (k©llhi
kaª daid© Cobet 1874, cl. Diph. 125.3 daidª mii k©llhi te mii, Luc. Nec. 7
perignien daidª kaª k©llhi, Alex. 47 kaqa±ron . . . Ëp¼ daidª kaª k©llhi),
since squill and puppy are both at home here. The squill (urginea maritima), or sea
onion, is a bulbous-rooted seaside plant with apotropaic (HP 7.13.4, Plin. Nat.
20.101) and medicinal properties; the particular variety used in purification
was known as ‘Epimenidean’ (HP 7.12.1 ; cf. Diph. 125.3, Luc. Nec. 7, Alex.
47, D.Chr. 48.17, Artem. 3.50). See Murr (on §2 djnhn) 211, Steier, ‘k©lla’,
RE iii.1 a (1927) 522–6, M. Grieve (ed. C. F. Leyel), A Modern Herbal (London
1931) 766–9, K. Lembach, Die Pflanzen bei Theokrit (Heidelberg 1970) 63–5,
A. D. Niebuhr, Herbs of Greece (Athens 1970) 125, A. Huxley and W. Taylor,
Flowers of Greece and the Aegean (London 1977) 148, Pl. 340, O. Polunin, Flowers
of Greece and the Balkans (Oxford 1980) no. 1630, Pl. 59, Parker, Miasma 231 –2,
J. Scarborough in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (edd.), Magika Hiera: Ancient
Greek Magic and Religion (New York and Oxford 1991) 146–8, H. Baumann,
Greek Wild Flowers and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece (transl. W. T. and E. R. Stearn,
London 1993) 114–15, Pl. 186–7, R. W. Sharples on fr. 417.14 Fortenbaugh (in
Fortenbaugh et al., Sources 5 (1995) 188–91), C. Hünemörder, ‘Meerzwiebel’,
DNP 7 (1999) 1130–1, J. E. Raven, Plants and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece (Oxford
2000) 18, 81 (illustrated 84). For the use of a puppy’s blood, Plu. 280b–c täi d
kunª pnte Þ po e«pe±n í Ellhne cränto kaª cränta© ge mcri nÓn nioi
jag©wi pr¼ toÆ kaqarmoÅ · kaª t¦i ëEkthi kulkia met tän llwn
kaqar©wn kjroui kaª perimttoui kulak©oi toÆ gnimoÓ deomnou,
perikulakim¼n t¼ toioÓto gno toÓ kaqarmoÓ kaloÓnte (Mainoldi loc.
cit. (above, p. 373), Parker 230).
keleÓai aËt¼n perikaqrai: for peri- see on §2 perirranmeno; for
-kaqrai /-kaq¦rai, §7n.
15 <kaª> main»menon d «dÜn £ p©lhpton jr©xa e« k»lpon ptÅai: we

need not only d for te (Blaydes before Münsterberg 1895), but also <ka©>
(Darvaris, but with <po>te); VI.9n.
Madness and epilepsy may be regarded as pollutions, inviting purification:
madness, Ar. V. 118; epilepsy, Hp. Morb.Sacr. 1.10, 12, 23, 25–6, 39–42, 46,
18.6 Grensemann (6.354, 358, 362, 364, 396 Littré); Parker, Miasma 207–8,
Burkert, Greek Religion 80.
Spitting averts pollution and protects against what is repugnant or frighten-
ing: Sittl, Gebärden 117–20, T. W. Nicolson, HSCPh 8 (1897) 23–40, W. Crooke,
‘Saliva’, Encycl.Rel.Eth. 11 (1920) 100–4, HdA 8 (1936/7) s.u. ‘Spucken’ 325–44,
374
R. Muth, Träger der Lebenskraft: Ausscheidungen des Organismus im Volksglauben der

Antike (Vienna 1954) 26–64, 167–8, Parker, Miasma 219, Opie and Tatem (on
§2 djnhn) 373. It was normal to spit at epileptics: Pl. Capt. 550 qui (in)sputatur
morbus, 553–5, Plin. Nat. 10.69, 28.35, Apul. Apol. 44 (Muth 32–5, O. Temkin,
The Falling Sickness (Baltimore and London 2 1971) 8, 13). The normal way
to keep off madmen was to pelt them with stones: Ar. Ach. 1165–8, V. 1491
(ballei Dindorf: -h uel -ei codd.), Au. 524–5, Call. fr. 191.79 (bll ì £
jeÓg ì Wilamowitz: ballei j- P),86 Pl. Poen. 528; cf. J. Mattes, Der Wahnsinn im
griechischen Mythos und in der Dichtung bis zum Drama des fünften Jahrhunderts (Hei-
delberg 1970) 53 n. 1, R. Padel, Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic
Madness (Princeton 1995) 100–2.
Spitting into the bosom is often performed thrice: Theoc. 6.39 trª e« m¼n
ptua k»lpon, 20.11, Tib. 1.2.54, [Verg.] Ciris 372–3, Petr. 131.5, anon. APl
251.5; §2n. Hence <trª> e« Hirschig 1849. But the numeral is commonly
absent: Men. Sam. 503, Call. fr. 687 (Bentley’s conj. introduces it), Juv. 7.112,
Luc. Apol. 6, Nau. 15, Strat. AP 12.229.1 –2, Lib. Ep. 804.2. I do not include
Petr. 74.13, where non spuit (Reiske) must replace conspuit (F. R. D. Goodyear,
Papers on Latin Literature (London 1992) 260–1). Certainly not trª for jr©xa
(Nauck 1863), which maladroitly removes a telling detail. jr©xa represents a
frisson akin to that which is felt at the sight of divinity (Pfister, ‘Epiphanie’, RE
Suppl. iv (1924) 317–18, Richardson on h.Cer. 188–90, Hopkinson on Call. Cer.
59–60); here the sight is of one whom divinity has touched. Cf. Pl. Phdr. 251 a
Âtan qeoeid pr»wpon dhi . . . präton mn jrixe, X. Cyr. 4.2.15 pi . . .
jr©khn gg©gneqai pr¼ t¼ qe±on, Men. Epit. 901 pjrika (at the prospect of
meeting a madman), Plu. 26b de± d m deilä mhd ì ãper Ëp¼ deiidaimon©a
n ¬eräi jr©ttein panta kaª prokune±n. The article is usually present; hence
e« <t¼n> k»lpon Nauck 1863 (before Blaydes). But it is sometimes absent,
even in prose: Lib. Ep. 804.2 ptÅw d e« k»lpon t¦i paroim©ai peiq»meno,
Diogenian. iv.82b (CPG 1.245) e« k»lpon oÉ ptÅei; cf. §5 pª g»nata, §14
kat kejal¦, KG 1.605(f ).
86 A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi (Oxford 1999) 45 n. 211, is unpersuasive. Of
bllei, ‘Presumably not “he throws things”: it was other people who threw things
at lunatics’. On the contrary, lunatics regularly throw stones: Lys. 3.7–8 tn toÅtou
man©an . . . ball me l©qoi, [Pl.] Alc. 2 139d paiomnou kaª ballomnou kaª per
e«Ûqain o¬ main»menoi diaprtteqai, Eub. 93.10 dkato d (sc. kratr) man©a
ãte kaª bllein poie±, Men. Dysc. 82–3 ma©neq ì ¾ diÛkwn . . . bllomai bÛloi,
l©qoi, Pl. Capt. 592–602, Hor. S. 2.3.128–30, 2.7.116–17 (an undetected allusion to
E. Or. 268), Plu. Pomp. 36.8 legen e²nai qaumat¼n . . . Âti m l©qoi bllei toÆ
pantänta Ëj ì ¡don¦ main»meno; Hunter on Eub. loc. cit. The true objection to
bllei, in this sense, is that it suits the sequence of thought less well than bll ì ¢
(and bllei 2nd person passive, which Kerkhecker contemplates, suits even less well).
Kerkhecker translates bllei as ‘he butts’. Not only is this sense unattested, but in a
context of madness the verb will inevitably suggest (as it does in the passages cited
above) the throwing of stones.
375
XVII
T H E U N G R AT E F U L G RU M B L E R
Introductory note
To translate memy©moiro as ‘faultfinding, criticizing, querulous’ (LSJ) is to over-
look the second half of the compound. The memy©moiro finds fault with his lot
or share (mo±ra). This is apparent in [Arist.] Ath. 12.5, the earliest instance of
the abstract noun: Solon condemns the memyimoir©ai of rich and poor, who are
not satisfied with what he has allotted them. The adjectival form appears first
in Isoc. 12.8 t¼ g¦r ti dureton kaª mikrol»gon kaª memy©moiron and
Arist. HA 608b 8–10 gun ndr¼ . . . memyimoir»teron, the verb memyimoire±n
in a decree (inauthentic) ap. D. 18.74, and in Polybius. [Arist.] VV 1251 b 24–5
lists memyimoir©a alongside mikrolog©a, duelpit©a and tapein»th as a
concomitant of mikroyuc©a. The full meaning is not always apparent or rele-
vant, but sometimes it is: e.g. Plb. 18.48.7 memyimoiroÅntwn aÉto± pª täi m
koinwnikä cr¦qai to± eÉtucmai, D.S. 17.78.1 pollän aÉtäi memyi-
moiroÅntwn toÅtou mn ta± dwrea± qerpeuen, Plu. 83c ãper pa±
¤kei memyimoirän Âti m daneimeno nplha kn©h tn p»lin, ll ì
j ì æn e²con qu oi metr©w okoqen;, Luc. JTr. 40 ke©nh memy©moiro
oÔa gankthen oÉ klhqe±a j ì t©ain Ëp¼ toÓ O«nw (cf. §2), Sat. 16
ptw d kaª tän lamban»ntwn memyimoir©a, kaª t¼ pemjqn ¾po±on n §i
mga doke©tw. Antidotus wrote a Memy©moiro (PCG 2.308).
Theophrastus is true to the full sense of the word. The Memy©moiro is
an ungrateful grumbling malcontent, who devalues what he gets because he
might have got more, or suspects that it may not be all that it seems, or resents
it because it calls for some return.
[1 ] Definition
‘Unsuitable criticism of the things which have been given’ is an honest,
though trite, attempt to describe the nature of his grumbling. Stein takes tän
dedomnwn to be ‘things given by the gods, by fate’, adducing Vett.Val. 5.6.10,
where t dedomna is opposed to t m peprwmna. This notion is incompati-
ble with the details of the sketch. Rather, tän dedomnwn ought to be whatever
things come the man’s way, from whatever source, as perhaps D.H. Ant. 5.32.4
trgein . . . t par»nta nagkzonto kaª t dedomna (Reiske: dedogmna
A: did»mena B) dceqai, where the source is human. But t did»mena may be
right there, and tän didomnwn (Lycius) here: cf. Hdt. 4.131.2, 8.138.1, 9.111.5,
[Pl.] Alc.2 141 c, Isoc. 15.146, D. 27.45.
ï Eti: ti d cd (def. XIV n.).
376
X V I I : T H E U N G R AT E F U L G RU M B L E R
pit©mhi: with gen., first Plb. 3.7.4 t¦ tän uggrajwn pitimew;
earlier with dat. (Arist. Top. 161 b 19, 38–9, Po. 1461 b 19). Cf. Stein 202. For
pit©mh© <ti> (Edmonds 1929, from M, which has no authority), def. I n.
par t¼ pro¦kon: Lys. 31.29, Pl. Phlb. 36d, Isoc. Ep. 9.12, D. 11.11, Plb.
9.28.7, D.S. 32.12.2. The reading of V is inscrutable: prohnä Sieben-
kees, prohkté = prohk»ntwn Cobet 1859, prokét = u.ll. prokonta and
prohk»ntwn Diels, ‘nescio quid esse possit nisi: prosrou e corr.’ Löwe ap.
Meister.
2 toi»de ti: toi»de in place of the regular toioÓto, only here and XXIV.2,
XXVIII.2, XXIX.2.
pote©lanto mer©da toÓ j©lou: it was customary to send presents of food
after a feast (XV.5n.). For mer©da, XXX.4 dianmwn mer©da, LSJ i.1 (not i.2,
to which LSJ assign this passage; add Men. Sic. 186). For the art. with j©lou,
VIII.2n.
e«pe±n pr¼ t¼n jronta “ ìEjq»nh moi toÓ zwmoÓ kaª toÓ o«nar©ou oÉk
pª de±pnon kala”: jq»nha (V) is indefensible: the servant cannot be
substituted for the master as addressee. jq»nh ì ra (Hanow 1861) and -en
ra (Cobet 1874) are not preferable. For zwmoÓ, VIII.7n. The diminutive
o«nar©ou may have a depreciatory sense (LSJ i) and need not be taken as
colloquial (so LSJ iii); it aptly expresses his sense of slight and his low opinion
of his would-be host, who served only poor wine and begrudged him even
that. Cf. W. Petersen, Greek Diminutives in -ION (Weimar 1910) 260.
3 kaª Ëp¼ t¦ ta©ra katajiloÅmeno: ‘kiss’ is elsewhere simple jile±n (II.6,
V.5). But the compound is likely to be right (kata V1 s ), as the more expressive
verb (LSJ katajilw), for contrast with the following jile±, here not ‘kiss’ but
‘love’.
e«pe±n “Qaumzw e« Æ kaª p¼ t¦ yuc¦ Àntw me jile±”: ‘I am sur-
prised if (it is the case that)’, ‘I wonder if’, as §6 and e.g. Pl. Phd. 95a pnu
qaÅmazon e ti xei ti craqai täi l»gwi aÉtoÓ. After qaumzein, e« com-
monly stands for Âti (KG 2.369–70), but not always, as LSJ qaumzw 6a might
be taken to imply. Cf. G. Wakker, Conditions and Conditionals (Amsterdam 1994)
286–94, M. Biraud, ‘Les constructions complétives du verbe qaumzw’, in
B. Jacquinod (ed.), Les complétives en grec ancien (Saint-Etienne 1999) 244–50.
Ar. Nu. 86 ll ì eper k t¦ kard©a mì Àntw jile± (cf. D.C. 64.14.3
eper Àntw jile±t me) supports Àntw (Blaydes) against oÌtw (V), which
is diversely and unconvincingly translated (‘thus warmly’ Edmonds, ‘as you
appear to’ Ussher, ‘that much’ Rusten). The reverse corruption is found at E.
Herc. 1345 (½rqä testes: Àntw L). For the word Àntw itself see Wilamowitz
on E. Herc. 610. Note also Men. Epit. 468 e« . . . Àntw. With p¼ t¦ yuc¦ . . .
jile± cf. H. Il. 9.343 k qumoÓ j©leon (similarly 486, Hes. fr. 58.4, Bion fr. 9.2;
377
COMMENTARY
k q- trgoia Theoc. 17.130), X. An. 7.7.43 Âti oi k t¦ yuc¦ j©lo §n,
Theoc. 8.35 b»koit ì k yuc t mnda, 29.4 oÉk Àla jilhn mì qlhq ì
pÆ kard©a, Ter. Eu. 175 ex animo ac uere, Cat. 109.4, Liv. 40.46.9.
4 kaª täi Diª ganakte±n oÉ di»ti Ìei ll di»ti Ìteron: Zeus cannot satisfy
everyone, for some want rain, others do not: Thgn. 25–6 oÉd gr ¾ ZeÆ |
oÎq ì Ìwn pnte ì ndnei oÎt ì ncwn, S. fr. 524.3–4 oÉd . . . ZeÆ . . . | oÎt ì
xepombrän oÎt ì paucma j©lo. He does not complain that it is raining
(rather, he wants rain, as a farmer might); he complains that it did not rain
earlier. <oÉc> Ìei (Needham), ‘he does not complain that it is not raining’ is
less well suited to what follows, nor is it supported by Âti oÉc Ìei M, which
epitomises all of oÉ di»ti Ìei ll di»ti Ìteron. For di»ti, XXIII.9n. For Ìei
sc. ZeÅ, XIV.12n.
5 kaª eËrÜn n t¦i ¾däi ballntion: the ballntion was a pouch-shaped

leather purse, held in the hand: Hug, ‘Marsupium’, RE xiv.2 (1930) 1981 –3,
Stone, Costume 248–9, R. Hurschmann, ‘Geldbeutel’, DNP 4 (1998) 888–9,
Olson on Ar. Ach. 130–1 ; illustration in M. Meyer, ‘Männer mit Geld: zu einer
rotfiguren Vase mit “Alltagsszene”’, JDAI 103 (1988) 87–125.
“All ì oÉ qhaur¼n hÌrhka oÉdpote”: the expression qhaur¼n eËr©kein
is regular (e.g. Pl. Phlb. 15d, Arist. Met. 1025 a 16–19, Rh. 1362 a 9, Philem. 112.3).
For hÌr- (Wilamowitz 1902b) not eÌr-, II.2n.
6 kaª primeno ndrpodon xion kaª poll dehqeª toÓ pwloÓnto:

haggling over price was an established procedure in commercial transactions
at Athens (X.7n.). Normally, when two aorist participles are linked by ka©,
the first is anterior in time to the second (IX.8n.). Here the second is anterior
to the first. But this is not much different from §8 d©khn nika kaª labÜn
pa t yjou. We cannot delete ka©, because the first part. would then
be anterior to the second (IX.8 n.). te (Casaubon) for ka© does not appeal.
For xion ‘cheap’, III.3n.
“Qaumzw” e«pe±n “e ti Ëgi oÌtw xion Ûnhmai”: ‘I am surprised if
(it is the case that) I have bought anything healthy so cheap’. This is the same
use of qaumzw e« as at §3. Â ti (Âti V) gives no acceptable sense. I do not
understand Â ti <t¼ m> Ëgi · oÌtw ktl. ( Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica 218
n. 1). Only here and in §9 is the verb of speech interposed after the speech has
begun; cf. XXV.6n.
7 ëU»: for the spelling, X.5n.

e«pe±n Âti “ ðAn proq¦i ‘Kaª t¦ oÉ©a t¼ ¤miu petin’ lhq¦ re±”:
for the direct quotation as object of proqe±nai, Men. Sic. 354–5 pr»qe
“qugtrion ktl.”. The reaction would be less surprising if the child were a
daughter, who would have to be provided with a dowry (Ter. Hau. 628). To
378
X V I I : T H E U N G R AT E F U L G RU M B L E R
deprecate the birth of a son and heir, because of the expense of his upbringing,
is particularly shocking, as it is in Lib. Decl. 34.14 peª d kaª ¾ jiloptwr
oÕto gneto pa±, Þ eqe mpote, Ëpekqe±nai toÓton eÉqÆ boul»mhn
nnoän t¼ dapanhr¼n tän t»kwn kaª tn natrojn nqumoÅmeno. For
other complaints (mild in comparison with this) about the cost of raising chil-
dren see M. Golden, Childhood in Classical Athens (Baltimore and London 1990)
106–7.
petin ‘is gone’ is an effectively dramatic present, and the obvious cor-
rection for pthn (V), a simple phonetic error (X.14n.). No other conjec-
ture is worth considering: pth Coray, peiin Meineke, p»lwlen Cobet
1874, pbh F. W. Schmidt (Verisimilia (Neu-Strelitz 1886) 13–14), pqanen
Blaydes, ppth Naber, pth Immisch 1923. For Âti introducing direct
speech, II.8n.
8 kaª d©khn nika kaª labÜn pa t yjou: to gain a unanimous
verdict would be remarkable, since an Athenian jury numbered at least 201
in a private suit, at least 501 in a public suit (Harrison 2.47, MacDowell, Law
36–40, id. on D. 21.223, P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion
Politeia (Oxford 1981) 728–9, Hansen, Athenian Democracy 187, Todd, The Shape
of Athenian Law 83). For d©khn nika, Ar. Eq. 93, V. 581 (E. El. 955, cited by
LSJ nikw i.5, is different). Deletion of linking ka© (Edmonds 1929) is misguided
(§6n.).
gkale±n täi gryanti t¼n l»gon Þ poll paraleloip»ti tän
dika©wn: on the professional speech-writer (logogrjo), ample bibliogra-
phy in D. Whitehead, Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches (Oxford 2000) 9–10. t
d©kaia are ‘just claims’, ‘valid arguments’, as e.g. Th. 3.44.4, 3.54.1, D. 18.7, 9.
gkale±n (Stephanus: -e± V) also Cantabr. (4 Wilson), with n erased (Stefanis
(1994a) 80 n. 29), and Casanat. 420 (52 Wilson) (Introduction, p. 49 n. 157,
Stefanis 79).
9 kaª rnou e«enecqnto par tän j©lwn: I.5n., XV.7n. With the expres-
sion as a whole cf. Philem. 178.13–14 j©loi oi . . . | ranon e«o©ouin.
“Kaª pä” e«pe±n “Âte de± . . . crin ½je©lein Þ hÉergethmnon;”: for
the favour of an interest-free loan he owes an enduring debt of gratitude, and
he fears that he may be asked to redeem this debt by returning the favour
(Millett, Lending and Borrowing 122–6). For elliptical kaª pä; Denniston 310;
for Âte ‘when’, ‘seeing that’, LSJ b.1, P. Monteil, La phrase relative en grec ancien
(Paris 1963) 279–80, Moorhouse, Syntax of Sophocles 301 ; both together, Ar. Nu.
717–18 kaª pä, Âte mou | jroÓda t crmata . . .;. Not Âti (V) ‘because’;
same error XIV.12. For e«pe±n interposed, §6n. hÉ- rather than eÉ- (V); II.2n.
379
XVIII
T H E D I S T RU S T F U L M A N
Introductory note
The distrust of the *pito is fuelled by a specific fear: loss of money or
property. Menander wrote an *pito (PCG vi.2 p. 74); nothing is known of
it.
[1 ] Definition
‘Presumption of wrongdoing directed against everyone’ does not recognise the
particular nature (financial) of his suspicions. Nor does ‘wrongdoing’ suit §3
(no other party is involved), or §4 (suspected negligence, rather than fear of
robbery), or §6 (fear of loss or accidental damage). See Stein 204.
ï Etin: def. XIV n.
mlei: II.9n.
Ëp»lhyi: the word occurs five times in [Pl.] Def., including the definition
of p©ti (413c; cf. Ingenkamp 63–4). See on def. II Ëpolboi.
2 pote©la t¼n pa±da ½ywnonta: ‘his slave, to do the shopping’ (the art.
as in §8, II.11, XIII.4, XIV.9, XX.10, XXI.8, XXIII.8, XXIV.12, XXV.2, 4),
not ‘der zu den Marktgängen bestimmte Sklave’ (Steinmetz, misled by Meis-
ter), which would be pa±da t¼n ½y- (Meier 1834/5), like XXII.10 (cited below).
For shopping by slaves, IX.4n.
teron pa±da pmpein [t¼n] peu»menon p»ou pr©ato: the article is not
supported by XXII.10 miqoÓqai . . . paidrion t¼ unakolouq¦on, where
the part. describes a continuing role rather than a temporary purpose (‘hire a
slave who will perform the role of companion for his wife’), nor by passages in
which the article stands without the noun, XXIV.10 proapotllein . . . t¼n
roÓnta, XXVI.2 proairontai . . . toÆ unepimelhomnou, XXIX.5
oÉc xomen toÆ Ëpr tän koinän unacqeqhomnou. When the part.
expresses a temporary purpose and the noun is present the article is omit-
ted, as in the preceding pote©la t¼n pa±da ½ywnonta and XXV.8
e«gein . . . keyomnou toÆ dhm»ta. See Goodwin §840 (contrast §826),
KG 2.86 (5) (contrast 1.175 (b-c)); also XXIV.13n. For other interpolated arti-
cles, IV.10n.
3 kaª jrein aÉt¼ t¼ rgÅrion kaª kat tdion kaq©zwn riqme±n p»on
t©: the part. jrwn (V) is unsatisfactory, since it is not logically or temporally
coordinate with kaq©zwn and therefore ought not to be linked to it by ka©.
The alternatives are (i) jrein, so that ka© links the infinitives, and (ii) [ka©]
380
X V I I I : T H E D I S T RU S T F U L M A N
(Cantabr.), leaving uncoordinated present participles. (i) is preferable, since

an infin. puts this act on a par with the act described in the following infin.,
and the sentence then gives two proofs of pit©a: that he carries the money
himself, and that he counts it continually. With (ii), carrying his own money is
merely a descriptive detail.
Money (like shopping, §2n.) is regularly carried by the slave: XXIII.8,
Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 89, Pl. Men. 265, Ps. 170 (quoted on §8); D. Cohen,
Theft in Athenian Law (Munich 1983) 82. With jrein aÉt¼ t¼ rgÅrion cf.
XXII.7 aÉt¼ jrein t lcana; for t¼ rgÅrion, IV.10n. Evidently kat
tdion is ‘stade by stade, every stade’, although Müller (1878) 12, LSJ kat
b.ii, KG 1.480, offer no precise parallel for this use of kat with an unqualified
noun expressing distance.
4 kaª tn guna±ka tn aËtoÓ rwtn katake©meno e« kkleike tn kibwt»n:
R. D. Griffith, Prometheus 19 (1993) 137, observes that Athenian husbands and
wives often slept in different rooms, and suggests that the *pito shares a
room with his wife because he distrusts her. But the Ducer too shares a
room with his wife (XIX.5). For kibwt», X.6n.
kaª e« emantai t¼ kulike±on: the verb is middle (LSJ b.ii), not, as trans-
lators take it, passive. For the practice of sealing doors and receptacles see
my note on E. Phaeth. 223 (add Men. Asp. 358); for seals and sealing gener-
ally, Whitehead on Hyp. Ath. 8. kulike±on is a noun of regular occurrence:
Ar. fr. 106 (defined as pothr©wn keuoqkh by Ath. 460d), Anaxandr. 30,
Cratin.Jun. 9.4, Eub. 62, 95, 116, Chares FGrH 125 f 5 (p. 661.18) ap. Ath.
575e, Callix. FGrH 627 f 2 (pp. 170.28, 172.3, 174.24, 176.18) ap. Ath. 199c, f,
201 d, 202e, P.Cair.Zen. 59014.9 (iii bc), Soc.Rhod. FGrH 192 f 1 ap. Ath. 148a,
D.S. 30.16, Luc. Lex. 7, Ath. 423b, 480b, 534e. It means ‘cupboard’ in the
original, now obsolete, sense of the word (OED 1 ‘a piece of furniture for the
display of plate; a sideboard, buffet’). See F. Studniczka, Das Symposion Ptole-
maios II (ASG 30.2, 1914) 163–9, D. B. Thompson, JEA 50 (1964) 151, G. M. A.
Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (London 1966) 81 –4,
E. E. Rice, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford 1983) 74. Richter
(who discusses the literary evidence admirably) defines it as ‘a stand for the
display and the conserving of vessels, statuettes, etc., especially, it would seem,
when they were of silver or gold’, and translates ‘buffet’, for which I substi-
tute the more familiar term ‘sideboard’. This is a piece of furniture which the
*pito, who values his cups (§7), will naturally wish to secure. Corruption
to kulioÅcion (V) is explicable: kulike±on = kul©kion (a regular misspelling in
the mss. of Ath.; cf. III.2 gkÛmeion, III.3 and XXVIII.4 poeid- for poid-,
IX.8 calke±a, XIII.3 -tin- for -tein-, XIX.8 -ion for -e±on), then kul©cion (as
XVI.2 crwn¦n for krhnän), and kuli<oÅ>cion. A slighter change kulikoÅ-
cion (Sylburg) has satisfied Richter and others. But words of comparable form,
381
COMMENTARY
daidoÅcion, katoÅcion, timoÅcion, show that this could not be an alternative

form for kulike±on. There is nothing plausible among the many alternative
coinages proposed: koilioÅcion cd, kol(l)ikoÅcion Lycius (‘capsa panaria’),
kleidoÅcion Sylburg before Naber, kunoÅcion Casaubon (the word is rightly
removed from LSJ by the Rev.Suppl.), tolioÅcion Hartung, daktulioÅcion
Blümner, chloÅcion Zingerle 1893.
kaª e« ¾ mocl¼ e« tn qÅran tn aÉle©an mbblhtai: perhaps aÎleion,
for conformity with XXVIII.3, Ar. V. 1482, Lys. 1.17, Pl. Smp. 212c, Men. fr.
815.2. Deletion of qÅran (Edmonds 1929) would give a common ellipse (Ar.
Pax 982, fr. 266, Theoc. 15.43 with Gow ad loc.); but the omission in M (t¦
aÉla©a) is no support.
kaª n ke©nh j¦i: ‘says yes’ (VIII.7n.).
nat gumn¼ k tän trwmtwn kaª nup»dhto: cf. Pi. N. 1.50 aÉt
poªn (‘with bare feet’)87 peplo ½roÅai ì p¼ trwmn. With k tän
trwmtwn cf. XIX.5 n to± trÛmai; for nup»dhto, epil. X n., Stone,
Costume 235–6.
t¼n lÅcnon ya: Pritchett 240–1, Stone 253–4.
kaª oÌtw m»li Ìpnou tugcnein: ‘and barely thus find sleep’ (Jebb), ‘und
kommt so kaum zum Schlafen’ (Meister); not ‘and even so will hardly go to
sleep’ (Edmonds); nor ‘and only then can he get some sleep’ (Rusten, and
apparently Ussher). This last translation gives oÌtw a resumptive sense found
after participles (XVI.2n.) but not in coordinated clauses, and ignores m»li.
For Ìpnou tugcnein, Ar. Ach. 713, PCG adesp. 707.2, Arist. HA 537 b 6, D.S.
31.9.5 (similarly Ìpnou lagcnein, XXV.6n.).
5 kaª toÆ ½je©lonta aËtäi rgÅrion met martÅrwn paite±n toÆ

t»kou: it is normal to make or repay a loan in the presence of witnesses
(XIV.8n.). It is abnormal to summon witnesses when asking for repayment.
Unless these are witnesses to the original loan (which is not stated, and should
probably not be inferred), they cannot bear witness that money is owed. They
can bear witness only that a request for repayment has been made. Just as
it is characteristic of the ìAna©qhto to summon unwanted witnesses to the
receipt of interest (XIV.8), so it is characteristic of the *pito to summon wit-
nesses because he anticipates that the borrower will deny that he has received
a request for repayment. met martÅrwn is a regular expression: Lys. 1.42,
Isoc. 21.7, Is. 3.19, fr. 23.2 Thalheim, D. 30.20, 34.30, 38.5, 42.19, 48.47, 49.2,
Men. fr. 379; E. Leisi, Der Zeuge im attischen Recht (Frauenfeld 1907) 160. For
reflexive aËtäi, I.2n.
Âpw m dÅnwntai xarnoi genqai: cf. Is. 3.21 Þ n met ple©twn
dunÛmeqa t kmartur©a pnte poioÅmeqa, ¯na täi . . . kmarturanti
87 Cf. S. L. Radt, Mnemosyne 24 (1971) 257 = Kleine Schriften (Leiden etc. 2002) 76.
382
m x¦i Ìteron xrnwi genqai, Isoc. 21.7 oÉdn §n qaumat»n, Âte kaª
o¬ met martÅrwn daneimenoi xhrnoÓnto. Not dÅnainto (V) in primary
sequence (Goodwin §§322–3; cf. Müller (1874) 52). The correction dÅnwntai
appears to be found only in Cantabr. Other wrongly transmitted optatives,
XIX.9, XX.6, XXIII.5, XXX.16 (lbwi BV: lboien A).
6 kaª t¼ ¬mtion d kdoÓnai dein»: for kdoÓnai, XVI.6n. It is less likely that
kdÓnai (V) is a vestige of kd<oÓnai pl>Ónai (Meineke; Hirschig had already
proposed plÓnai for dein»), as XXII.8, XXX.10. With toÓ knajw deleted,
we may take rghtai to refer not only to washing but to other activities,
such as mending. Meineke also proposed qo«mtion (XXX.10n.).
oÉc Á <n> bltita rghtai: Á (Salmasius, De Usuris Liber (Leiden
1638) 161 : Þ V) <n> (Diels) rather than <Á n> Þ (Darvaris; <Á> Þ
J. M. Gesner before Meier 1834/5), since bltita is better without Þ, and
confusion of o and w is very common (III.2, VI.3, 9, IX.4, XI.3, 8, XVI.7, 10,
XXVI.1). For loss of n, XVI.3n.; omission of antecedent, V.3n. Fut. indic.
Á . . . rgetai (V? ) is much less natural. Not bltit ì <n> (Petersen),
which would call rather for rgaito.
ll ì oÕ n §i xio gguht [toÓ knajw]: Âtan (V) gives a very clumsy
connection (‘not to the best worker but when there is . . .’). oÕ n, restoring perfect
balance with Á <n>, is preferable to Âtwi n (Coray; Âtwi alone Needham),
and obliges us to delete toÓ knajw as an explanatory gloss (contemplated
by Pauw, before Ast). Alternatively, tän knajwn after rghtai (Darvaris),
rather than täi knaje± after dein» (Navarre 1918). For the spelling kn-/gn-,
X.14n.
7 kaª Âtan ¤khi ti a«th»meno kpÛmata: loan of domestic objects (IV.11 n.)
would normally be made without interest, witnesses, or security (Millett, Lending
and Borrowing 38–9). The kpÛmata are, as often, of metal (gold or silver Th.
6.32.1, 6.46.3, S. fr. 378.3–4, E. Ion 1175, Ar. Ach. 74, D. 19.139, X. Cyr. 8.4.24);
but the metal is not specified, perhaps deliberately, since it would spoil the
point if the cups were seen to be truly valuable. The word itself appears to be
interchangeable with potrion, which may equally be used of precious cups
(gold or silver Hdt. 3.148.1, 7.119.2, 7.190, Alex. 59.2; set with precious stones
XXIII.3).
mlita mn m doÓnai, n d ì ra ti o«ke±o §i kaª nagka±o: cf. IX.4
mlita mn kra, e« d m. For ra, Denniston 37–8. o«ke±o . . . kaª nagka±o
is ‘member of the same household or blood-relative’, not ‘intimate friend
or relation’ ( Jebb; similarly Edmonds), nor ‘Verwandter und Nahestehender’
(Meister), ‘relative or close friend’ (Rusten). Since o«ke±oi are distinguished
from j©loi at IV.3 and XXVIII.6, o«ke±o here will not be ‘friend’ but a
person belonging to the same family (LSJ o«ke±o ii.1) as opposed to a relative
383
COMMENTARY
by blood, the normal sense of nagka±o (LSJ ii.5; add Men. fr. 187.3, 655.3,
Philem. 94.4). The use of ka© (virtually for ¢) is warranted by the conditional
clause (‘if it is an o«ke±o and (if it is) an nagka±o’).
m»non oÉ purÛa: ‘all but’, as HP 3.9.7, Ar. V. 516, Ec. 538, Pl. R. 600d,
[Pl.] Mx. 235c, Isoc. 4.120, 13.4, 15.38, X. Cyr. 7.5.50, D. 5.5, 18.226, 19.47
(and often), Aeschin. 2.79. For pur»w ‘prove (the quality of the metal) by
applying fire’, LSJ iii.3 overlook this passage and cite only the Septuagint and
Philo. Add also A. Ag. 440 (our passage refutes Fraenkel ad loc.) and Gal. 14.288
Kühn. For the practice itself, Lap. 45 qaumat d jÅi kaª t¦ baanizoÅh
t¼n cru»n (sc. k»nh, whetstone)· doke± gr d tn aÉtn cein täi purª
dÅnamin· kaª gr ke±no dokimzei, Thgn. 499–500 n purª mn cru»n te kaª
rguron drie ndre | ginÛkou ì , Pl. R. 413e baan©zonta polÆ mllon
£ cru¼n n pur©, 503a, Isoc. 1.25, PCG adesp. 1029, [Men.] Mon. 385 =
Comp. 1.165 Jäkel, Comp. 2.83, 3.59, Plin. Nat. 33.59–60; R. J. Forbes, Metallurgy
in Antiquity (Leiden 1950) 213, 216, id. Studies in Ancient Technology 8 (Leiden
1964) 170–1, C. Singer et al. (edd.), A History of Technology 2 (Oxford 1956) 45–6,
R. Bogaert, ‘L’essai des monnaies dans l’antiquité’, RBN 122 (1976) 5–34,
J. F. Healy, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World (London 1978)
203–4. There are many conjectures, bad or unnecessary: m»non oÉ poÛa
(or tupÛa, inter alia) Coray, m»non or Ànoma ntupÛa Foss 1834 (the latter
also Orelli 1834), m»non Ànoma mpurÛa Meier 1834/5, m»non oÉc ¾rkÛa
Jebb (before Naber), m»non necura Blümner.
kaª ced¼n gguhtn labÛn: cf. Is. 5.22, D. 24.169, 33.7, 37.40, 59.65;
J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig 1905–15) 725.
8 kaª t¼n pa±da d kolouqoÓnta keleÅein aËtoÓ Àpiqen m bad©zein ll ì

mproqen: perhaps <t¼n> k- (Casaubon); cf. Lys. fr. 53 Thalheim t¼n pa±da
t¼n kolouqoÓnta met ì aÉtoÓ, IX.3n. For the same instruction, Pl. Cur. 487
I tu prod’, uirgo: non queo quod pone me est seruare, Ps. 170 I, puere, prae: ne quisquam
pertundat cruminam cautiost.
¯na jultthi aÉt¼n m n t¦i ¾däi podri: the active verb, ‘watch him, so
that he does not run away’ (Ar. V. 69–70 julttein t¼n patra . . . ¯na qÅraze
m ì x©hi, Pl. Cra. 393c jÅlatte gr me m phi parakroÅwma© e, LSJ b.1),
gives better sense and a more natural construction than middle jultthtai
(V), ‘guard against his running away’. A middle would be more naturally used
without an acc. object (LSJ c.ii.3); the acc. at X. Mem. 2.2.14 toÆ mn qeoÆ
paraithi . . . toÆ d nqrÛpou julxhi m e . . . timwin (LSJ c.ii.4)
is prompted by the structure preceding. Âpw (Hanow 1861) for aÉtäi would
do well enough (LSJ c.ii.4) but is an unlikely change. To retain aÉtäi (V)
and take jultthtai as passive (Edmonds, Ussher) is absurd. Second aorist
podri (Hirschig before Cobet 1858), not -drhi (V); KB 2.400, Veitch
187–8.
384
9 kaª to± e«lhj»i ti par ì aËtoÓ kaª lgoui “P»ou; katqou· oÉ gr
colzw pw”: for e«lhj»i, of ‘getting by purchase’, IX.4n. For aËtoÓ, I.2n.
p»ou is more likely genitive (as §2, IV.13) than (as suggested first by Casaubon)
imperative, ‘calculate how much (sc. is owed)’, from the rare verb found at
XXIII.6. katqou is ‘lay it up (in memory)’, by making a written record of it,
in effect ‘put it on account’; cf. Pl. Lg. 858d tn aËtän e« mnmhn umbouln
perª b©ou katqento uggryante, D. 61.2 pnta d taÓta ggraptai t¼n
tr»pon Ân ti n e« bibl©on kataqe±to (LSJ ii.6). Emendation has produced
nothing better: p»ou kaª t©qou Foss 1834, p»ou <kaª> katqou Hartung,
p»on cr»non ti katcw; Ussing, poÓ oi kataqä; Madvig 1868, p»te oi
kataqä; Herwerden, poÓ kataqä; Navarre 1920. To replace the plural par-
ticiples with sing. (täi e«lhj»ti . . . täi lgonti Holland 1923), because a
single addressee follows, is pedantic.
oÉ gr colzw pw is regular word order (e.g. Th. 8.74.1 oÉ gr ¢iden
pw, Pl. Tht. 200d oÉ gr pou peroÓmn g pw;, D. 18.18 oÉ gr gwg ì po-
liteu»mhn pw t»te), and suspicion of pw (del. Navarre 1920) is unwarranted.
e«pe±n “Mhdn pragmateÅou· gÜ gr, <w> n Æ colhi,
unakolouqw”: a verb is needed to introduce the direct speech (see on
VIII.2 pibale±n ktl.). Better to replace pmpein (V) with e«pe±n (Madvig 1868)
than to add a verb of speech after pmpein (<lgein> Schneider, <e«pe±n>
Foss 1834), since ‘send (money)’ reads oddly here. Not “Pmpein mhdn prag-
mateÅou . . .” (Immisch 1923), pemp<z>ein (Holland 1923), propm<pwn
e«>pe±n for pw pmpein (Latte ap. Steinmetz).
gÜ gr, <w> n Å is decidedly more pointed than gÜ gr, n Æ
<m> (Schneider) and w gr n Å (Unger 1886). For w n, XVI.3n.
385
XIX
THE OFFENSIVE MAN
Introductory note
Of the many ways in which a person may be ducer, ‘hard to handle’,
this sketch highlights one: physical repulsiveness, causing offence or disgust.
This is ducreia of the kind evoked by the wound of Philoctetes (S. Ph. 473,
900).
The sketch falls into three sections: (i) offensive physical features, associated
with disease, disfigurement, or neglect of the body (§2–§4); (ii) offensive physical
behaviour, associated with bodily functions or bodily hygiene (§5); (iii) inap-
propriate behaviour not associated with the body (§7–§10). I leave undecided
for the moment whether §6 belongs with (ii) or with (iii).
The style of (ii) is unusual: no fewer than six clauses in asyndeton. It is
possible that this section has suffered curtailment or rewriting (Diels). There
has certainly been some interference hereabouts: for (i) ends with a short
interpolation.
(iii) does not belong to this sketch. Hottinger suggested that §7–§9 belong to
XI (the Bdelur»), and Bloch placed §7–§10 after XI.7, implausibly. The man
described here blasphemes when his mother visits the augur (§7). This is not
of a pattern with the shameless attention-drawing behaviour of the Bdelur».
And we would not want applause and belching twice in the same sketch (XI.3;
XIX.5, 9). Other suggested locations (XIV Klotz, XX Petersen) have even less
to commend them. It is likely that we have here the remnant of a different
sketch, whose beginning has been lost. A similar accident accounts for the
present state of V (the *reko). See further Stein 206.
It remains to consider whether §6 belongs with (ii), as is usually supposed,
or with (iii), as suggested by Wachsmuth ap. Ruge. The behaviour described in
(ii) is associated with bodily functions and bodily hygiene: nose-wiping, scratch-
ing, spitting, belching, dirty hands, rancid oil. This behaviour is offensive to
others, whose identity is either implied by the occasion or mentioned explicitly
(diners, worshippers, talkers, drinkers, wife, bathers). The behaviour described
in §6 (wearing a thick undergarment and a thin stained cloak) differs in two
respects: it is not associated with any bodily function or with bodily hygiene;
(ii) it does not affect any particular person or group. But §6, even as it stands,
is not an impossible continuation of (ii); and, for all we know, §6 was not the
original ending, but is itself incomplete, and a continuation now lost may have
developed the picture begun here. At all events, §6 is less likely to belong with
(iii), since the wearing of inappropriate and stained clothes has no obvious
affinity with the offences described in (iii).
386
XIX: THE OFFENSIVE MAN
[1 ] Definition
This is not a definition of ducreia but a description of that particular form of
it which is illustrated in §2–§4. One could allow that the description is relevant
to the latter part of §5 and to §6; but hardly to the earlier part of §5. Cf. Stein
206.
lÅph parakeuatik: cf. def. V ¡don¦ parakeuatik, XX lÅph
poihtik; for lup, also def. XII.
2 Lack of sympathy towards disfiguring diseases is characteristic both of com-

edy (Dover, Greek Popular Morality 201, Dunbar on Ar. Au. 151) and of ancient
society in general (R. Garland, The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in
the Graeco-Roman World (London 1995), ch. 5, ‘Deriding the disabled’). But this
man forfeits sympathy not simply because he is disfigured. To drag in past and
future members of his family is tasteless.
lpran cwn kaª lj»n: relatively benign skin-disorders, commonly men-
tioned together (e.g. Hp. Epid. 2.1.7 (5.78 Littré), 2.5.24 (5.132), D.S. 34/35.1.2,
Gal. 14.758–9 Kühn). lpra probably describes a form of psoriasis or eczema,
lj» a loss of skin pigmentation (M. D. Grmek, Diseases in the Ancient Greek
World (transl. M. and L. Muellner, Baltimore and London 1989) 165–7).
kaª toÆ Ànuca mlana: black or darkly discoloured nails are often men-
tioned as a sign of ill health by medical writers, e.g. Hp. Prog. 9 (2.132 Littré)
pelidno©, Hebd. 51 (8.671) melain»menoi, Coac. 424, 483 (5.680, 692) plioi,
Int. 29 (7.244) join©keoi, Mul. 1.26 (8.68) colÛdee, Gal. 16.205 Kühn pelid-
noª £ mlane. Blackness of nails is appropriately paired with the whiteness of
lj». Large or long nails (meglou V; for the corruption, Diggle, Euripidea
10) are less appropriate. They are an attribute of the K¦re ([Hes.] Sc. 254)
and of an infernal spectre (Ar. Ra. 1337). But it would be odd to describe large
or talon-like nails, an unnatural phenomenon, as a congenital affliction, com-
parable to lpra and lj», natural ailments. If we take meglou to mean
no more than ‘long’ (Gal. 3.15 Kühn Ëperball»ntw megloi, sc. Ànuce),
that is ‘untrimmed’, such nails may be found unattractive (Hor. Ars 297, Ov.
Ars 1.519, Tatian Ad Graec. 25 (of philosophers) Ànuca qhr©wn perijronte;
contrast XXVI.4 kribä pwnucimno). But long untrimmed nails are not
inherited. Stein (205 n. 1) suggests unpersuasively that it is a mark of his offen-
siveness that he attributes their size to heredity, instead of cutting them. Usener
deleted kaª toÆ Ànuca meglou; but there was no motive for interpolation.
Ribbeck 1870 transposed the words before kaª toÆ ½d»nta mlana in §4;
this is too adventurous.
kaª j¦ai taÓta e²nai aËtäi uggenik rrwtmata· cein gr aÉt
kaª t¼n patra kaª t¼n pppon: rrwtmata ‘ailments’, a term used by
387
COMMENTARY
medical writers, is in general use too (D. 2.21, 26.26, Hyp. Ath. 15, Men. Asp.
337, Phasm. 20 Arnott (45 Sandbach); cf. XXX.14 rrwt©a). aÉt (Meier
1842) is the obvious replacement for aÉt»n (V), which it is unnatural to take
as emphasising t¼n patra and t¼n pppon. Not aËtoÓ (Foss 1835), which
is as unwelcome as aËtoÓ proposed for aÉt»n in the next clause.
kaª oÉk e²nai çidion Ë¼n e« t¼ gno Ëpoblleqai: Ë»n (rather than u¬»n,
IX.5n.) is a likelier replacement for aÉt»n (V) than are paid©on (Hanow 1860),
n»qon (Ribbeck 1870), llon (Ruge), llo±on (Wachsmuth ap. Ruge). Alterna-
tively, aÉt»n might be deleted (Hanow 1860), since Ëpoblleqai is commonly
used without object (e.g. Hdt. 5.41.2, Ar. Th. 407, Pl. R. 538a, D. 21.149). I
reject aËtoÓ (Jebb), aÉtän (Unger 1886, before Meister), aËtän (Pasquali,
not Meister, to whom Diels had ascribed it), which, while legitimately placed
(XIII.10n., XIV.10n.), are weakly redundant. Perhaps aorist Ëpobalqai (see
on V.6 poke©raqai).
3 mlei d dein¼ ka©: II.9n., VI.9n., XXVI.3n.

lkh cein n to± ntiknhm©oi: cf. Ar. Eq. 907 tn to±in ntiknhm©oi
lkÅdria, Plin. Nat. 22.69 tibiarum taetra ulcera, 23.123, Dsc. 4.182 apr»knhma
lkh.
kaª propta©mata n to± daktÅloi: not whitlows on the fingers (LSJ) but
bruises or lesions on the toes. propta©ein is ‘stub the toe’ (XV.8, Men. Dysc.
91 –2 toÆ daktÅlou [kataxa gr] | ced»n ti propta©wn pa[nta), and
pr»ptaima is either the act itself (Gal. 7.136 Kühn pª propta©mati dak-
tÅlou leipoqumante) or the damage which results (Luc. Peregr. 45 t¼ n täi
daktÅlwi pr»ptaima). Poll. 2.198–9 distinguishes c©metla ‘chilblains’, on
the underneath of the toes, from pta©mata ‘knocks’, or the damage caused by
knocks, on the upper parts (t . . . Ëpr toÆ daktÅlou kroÅmata pta©mata,
sc. ½nomzetai), citing (for the same sense) Ar. fr. 818 p©ptaima (the misinter-
pretation of this word by LSJ is corrected in the Rev.Suppl.). Cf. Phot. E 1670
Theodoridis p©ptaima, oÉcª pr»komma. lgoui d kaª propta©mata.
Mnandro Pallak¦i (fr. 285).
kaª m qerapeÓai ll ì ai qhriwq¦nai: he allows them to ‘become
malignant’, medical terminology (LSJ qhri»w ii.4, qhr©on ii, qhriÛdh iii,
qhr©wma; cf. S. Ph. 698 nqrou pod»). No need for poq- (Cobet 1874).
4 kaª t macla d jqeirÛdei . . . cein: his armpits are ‘lice-infested’

(Arist. HA 557 a 7, 9, 596b 9, Ammon. Diff. 280 Nickau). Of the three varieties
of lice which attack humans (pediculus capitis, head louse; pediculus corporis, body
louse; p(h)thirus pubis, crab louse) the third infests hair in the armpits and
on the trunk, as well as pubic hair (P. A. Buxton, The Louse (London 2 1947)
138, 140, J. R. Busvine, Insects and Hygiene (London and New York 3 1980) 261;
cf. A. E. Shipley, The Minor Horrors of War (London 3 1916) 27). For classical
388
lice, Gossen, ‘Laus’, RE xii.1 (1925) 1030–9, H. Keil, ‘The Louse in Greek
Antiquity’, Bull.Hist.Med. 25 (1951) 305–23, W. P. MacArthur, CQ 4 (1954) 171,
M. Davies and J. Kathirithamby, Greek Insects (London 1986) 168–76, I. C.
Beavis, Insects and Other Invertebrates in Classical Antiquity (Exeter 1988) 112–20.
The corruption qhriÛdei (V) was prompted by preceding qhriwq¦nai (see on
V.9 palaitr©dion). Translations unwittingly bring out the ineptness of this
adj.: ‘ferinas et hirsutas’ as hendiadys for ‘ferarum more hirsutas’ (Casaubon),
‘shaggy as a beast’ (Edmonds), ‘his armpits might belong to an animal, with
hair extending etc.’ (Rusten). That wild animals are hairy and armpits are hairy
does not justify the description of an armpit as being like a wild animal. Hair
is not an attribute which characterises wild animals. The malodorous armpit as
the haunt of goats (Ar. Pax 812 tragomcaloi, Pl. Ps. 738, Cat. 69.5–6, 71.1,
Ov. Ars 3.193, Hor. Epod. 12.5; cf. Hor. S. 1.2.27, 1.4.92, Ep. 1.5.29, S. Lilja, The
Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity (Helsinki 1972) 132–4, 151 –2) throws
no light on the adj., for qr is not synonymous with goat.
Sylburg proposed duÛdei. A reference to smell or sweat would be appro-
priate (Sud. 9 ¾ k tän macalän ¬drÜ kaª Âlw ¾ k tän ko©lwn kak-
wdtato, Ar. Ach. 852 Àzwn kak¼n tän macalän, [Arist.] Pr. 908b 20 ¡
maclh duwdtaton tän t»pwn, Eup. 258, Plin. Nat. 22.87, Petr. 128.1),
but less interesting.
kaª dae©a . . . cri pª polÆ tän pleurän: cf. Ar. Ec. 60–1 cw t
macla | l»cmh dautra, Lys. fr. 111 Thalheim tn mn k»mhn yiln
cei, t d macla dae©a, Hor. Epod. 12.5 hirsutis . . . alis; depilation of
the armpits, Pl. Am. 326, Poen. 871 –3, Sen. Ep. 56.2, 114.14, Juv. 11.157.
cri pª polÆ tän pleurän is ‘as far as over a large part of the sides’.
For pª polÅ with gen., Th. 1.50.2 (t¦ qalh), 4.3.2, 7.11.4 (t¦ cÛra);
also 4.12.3, 7.38.1, 39.2, 40.5, 65.2 (LSJ polÅ iv.4). This is the first attested
instance of cri before a preposition, if X. An. 5.5.4 (cri e«) is spurious;
thereafter cri p© A.R. 4.1403, cri pr» D.S. 3.41.1, 5.35.2, 19.1.10, etc.
(LSJ i.2). But mcri e« / pr» is found earlier (LSJ i, KG 1.529–30). For the
spelling (cri not cri), Arnott, ‘Orthographical variants’ 194–5.
kaª toÆ ½d»nta mlana kaª qiomnou: for black teeth, Caecil. com.
268 atratis dentibus, Hor. Carm. 2.8.3 dente . . . nigro, Epod. 8.3, Ov. Ars 3.279–80.
Contrast V.6. For qiomnou ‘decaying’, Hp. Epid. 4.19 (5.156 Littré), Aff. 4
(6.212). Similarly bebräqai, Epid. 4.19, 25, 52 (5.156, 168, 192), Aff. 4 (6.212).
[ãte dunteukto e²nai kaª hd: trite and unwanted, and, most objec-
tionably, hd anticipates the subject of XX; deleted by Immisch 1897. ãte
introduces similar interpolations in IV.4, XX.9. For dunteukto (first in Plb.)
see on def. V nteuxi; for another interpolation of generalising adjectives,
VI.2–3n.
kaª t toiaÓta]: no more acceptable here than at XXX.11. The words
are usually taken as an introduction to the following list. Stein (on XXX.11)
389
COMMENTARY
vainly adduces two passages in support: I.6 täi toioÅtwi tr»pwi toÓ l»gou
cr¦qai, followed (quite naturally) by a series of brief asyndetic phrases in
direct speech, and XXVI.3 to± toioÅtoi tän l»gwn craqai, followed
(naturally again) by Âti and direct speech. As an introduction to what follows,
kaª t toiaÓta gives banal style and is against normal usage. This is a formulaic
expression, used not to introduce but to conclude, like ‘etc.’, ‘uel sim’.: e.g.
HP 3.16.3 toÅtwi cräntai pr¼ t mxa kaª t toiaÓta, 7.3.4 o³on
çajanª goggulª kaª t toiaÓta, Pl. Cra. 419b t© d d ¡don kaª lÅph
kaª piqum©a kaª t toiaÓta, å Ûkrate;, D. 18.127 boänta “å g¦ kaª
¤lie kaª ret” kaª t toiaÓta, Arist. EN 1174 a 31 pt¦i bdii li kaª
t toiaÓta (it is ubiquitous in Arist.).88 Here kaª t toiaÓta was probably
designed to go with what precedes, as Hottinger and Darvaris saw. But a bald
‘etc.’ would be inexcusably feeble and cannot be imputed to Theophrastus.
It is either a gratuitous interpolation or a sign that a longer text has been
abbreviated (Schneider 1799, p. xxv). In epil. XXVI kaª toiaÓta tera ktl.
introduces either an interpolation or an abridgement. The epitome M uses
kaª Âa toiaÓta and the like for purpose of abridgement in V, VIII, XI, XIV,
XVIII, XIX, XX.
The asyndeton which follows (no fewer than six asyndetic clauses) invites
suspicion. A tricolon at VI.6 (V.10n.) is much less remarkable. Foss 1861 , taking
kaª t toiaÓta as a sign of abbreviation, speculated (not very convincingly)
that these six clauses, once joined by copulas, were omitted, then restored to
the text without them, but with kaª t toiaÓta left in place.
5 <kaª> q©wn pomÅtteqai: q©wn ‘at dinner’, as XX.6, XXIV.11. The

gesture is particularly offensive if the nose is wiped with the hand (Ar. Eq.
910 pomuxmeno å D¦m mou pr¼ tn kejaln poyä). Persians avoided
nose-wiping (and spitting) in public (X. Cyr. 1.2.16, 8.1.42).
qÅwn mì daxqai: a brilliant conjecture for qÅwn ma d ì rxaqai (V).
The root dax- (½dax-) covers both itching and scratching (LSJ ½dax-). For the
middle ‘scratch an itch’ as here, D.S. 3.29.6 Þ Ëp¼ yÛra tin¼ reqiz»meno
metr©w ½daxqai jilotime±tai. The spelling of V favours dax- over ½dax-.
Further support for this form is provided by Phot. A 325 Theodoridis (=
Suda A 430) dax¦ai· t¼ kn¦ai, oÉk n täi <o> (add. Pierson) ½dax¦ai.
kaª dace±n· t¼ knqein· “dace± . . .” (Ar. fr. 416, quoted on II.3), Erot.
88 Cf. Ar. Pax 1280–1 “â o¬ mn da©nunto boän kra” kaª t toiaut©, | “riton
prot©qento kaª tq ì ¤dita paqai”. Olson refers kaª t toiaut© to ‘the words
that follow, which the speaker already has in mind’. I should say, rather, that it refers
backwards, as normal, and the second quotation is added as a further example of
t toiaut©. In Alex. 281.1 –3 p©nna, krabon (and five more items), | toaÓta,
better toiaÓta (Meineke), like Ephipp. 15.8–9 lektru»nion, jttion, perd©kion, |
toiaÓta (toaÓta Bergk).
390
fr. 30 (p. 107 Nachmanson) ½daxhmoª £ daxhmo©· n tii gr tän nti-
grjwn oÌtw eÌromen. e«ª gr knhmoª met ì reqimoÓ, Þ kaª Mnandro
n Plok©wi jh©· “ . . . nhdaxto (uel n d-: nedx- et nedx- codd.) . . .”
(Men. fr. 302), Phot. A 322 Theodoridis dagm» · ¾ ½daxhm», Âper tª
knhm». oÌtw ojokl¦ (Tr. 770 ½dagm» codd., dagm» Brunck e Phot.).
dax- is attested elsewhere in the lexicographical tradition (e.g. Phot. H 41
Theodoridis = Hsch. H 100 (PCG adesp. 347) daxato), by Gal. 19.70
Kühn, and is transmitted by all or part of the mss. of Hp. Mul. 1.18, 90, 2.154,
171, 183 (8.58, 214, 330, 352, 364 Littré). Elsewhere ½dax-, e.g. Sign. 30, X.
Smp. 4.28, TrGF adesp. 619.8 (= [S.] fr. 1127.8 Pearson), Nic. Ther. 306. Cf. KB
2.495. For the position of ma (after the part.), IV.9, XX.6, XXV.2 (conj.),
XXVII.10.
prolalän <©alon> porr©ptein p¼ toÓ t»mato: since por-
r©ptein without object is abnormal, I prefer to assume lipography (-lalän
<ilon>); cf. X. Mem. 1.2.54 t¼ ©alon k toÓ t»mato poptÅouin.
The verb porr©ptein was perhaps chosen to suggest involuntary spitting
(as opposed to poptÅein, of deliberate spitting), like that imputed to Anti-
machus ¾ yakdo (Ar. Ach. 1150), so called because (S uet.) prorraine toÆ
¾miloÓnta dialeg»meno. Not porra©nein (Cobet 1874). For prolalän,
Introd. Note to VII.
ma p©nwn proeruggnein: present part. (Casaubon before Blaydes), not
piÛn (V). Elsewhere in this work the part. accompanied by ma is present,
whether the infinitive is present (§5 above, II.10 (conj.), V.5, IX.4, XI.4, XX.6,
XXIII.2, XXV.2 (conj.), XXVII.10) or aorist (II.3, IV.8, VII.7). Aorist part.
with aorist indicative (X. An. 3.1.47 ma taÓt ì e«pÜn nth, adduced by
Stein 207 n. 1) is irrelevant (KG 2.82 Anmerk. 4). Cf. Eup. 385.5 metaxÆ
p©nwn. There is no call for ruggnein (Stein): omission of the dat. with
proeruggnein (‘belch at’, sc. his neighbour) is no different from its omis-
sion with preceding prolalän. The verb is used absolutely by Ael. NA 9.11
(with dat. by Diod.Com. 2.35). Again (as with the spitting) the belching is
probably involuntary (contrast XI.3).
nap»nipto n to± trÛmai met t¦ gunaik¼ aËtoÓ koimqai: with
hands unwashed after dinner, as Ar. Eq. 357, Phryn.Com. 57. The verb
pon©zeqai, regular for washing the hands (as XVI.2 poniymeno t
ce±ra), was used specifically to distinguish hand-washing after dinner from
hand-washing before dinner (Ath. 408f ìAritojnh ¾ grammatik¼ [fr. 368
Slater] . . . cleuzei toÆ oÉk e«d»ta tn diajorn toÓ te kat ceir¼ kaª
toÓ pon©yaqai· par gr to± palaio± t¼ mn pr¼ r©tou kaª de©pnou
lgeqai kat ceir», t¼ d met taÓta pon©yaqai); cf. Ar. V. 1217 deipnoÓ-
men, ponen©mmeqa, Ec. 419 «nai kaqeudonta ponenimmnou, Ginouvès,
Balaneutikè 153, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.105–6, Pellegrino 75. This conjec-
ture (Badham ap. Sheppard) for nap©ptonto (V) is certain and admirable.
391
COMMENTARY
Later proposals are as clumsy as they are otiose: nipt»pou Wachsmuth

ap. Ruge, n©ptoi (after n) Navarre 1920, <toÓ kun¼ un>anap©ptonto
Immisch 1923, n©ptoi po©n Holland 1923. Cf. Stein 207.
With n to± trÛmai cf. e.g. Ar. Nu. 1069, V. 1213, Ec. 39, XVIII.4 k tän
trwmtwn. For the word order met t¦ gunaik¼ aËtoÓ, XIV.10n. More
regular would be met t¦ g- alone (Usener), as X.6, 13, XVI.12; or <t¦>
aËtoÓ (Navarre 1920), as XVIII.4, XXII.10. See also XVIII.4n. init.
la©wi apräi n balane©wi crÛmeno ujeoÓ Àzeqai: for the use of oil
in the baths, Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 214 n. 4, M.-C. Amouretti, Le pain et l’huile
dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1986) 183–4. Rancid oil again, XXX.8; cf. Hor. S.
1.6.123–4 unguor oliuo, | non quo fraudatis immundus Natta lucernis (i.e. lamp-oil), Juv.
5.90 cum Boccare nemo lauatur (because of his oil).
I replace jÅzeqai (V) with ujeoÓ Àzeqai. Active Àzein IV.2, XIV.12;
middle, Xenoph. 1.6 nqeo ½z»meno, Hp. Morb. 4.56 (7.608 Littré) ½z»menon
toÓ brÛmato, and several times kak¼n Àzeqai (XIV.12n.). Middle forms
are regularly used with no distinction from active: KG 1.102–3, Diggle, Studies
on the Text of Euripides 91, Moorhouse, Syntax of Sophocles 177, V. Bers, Greek
Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (New Haven and London 1984) 111 –16. Since
Àzeqai (Petersen) does not give adequate sense or account for jÅzeqai (V),
I amplify it with ujeoÓ, a Homeric noun which appears also in prose (Parth.
12.2, D.Chr. 7.73, 8.25, 30.33, Longus 3.3.4). Cf. Pl. Mos. 40 hara suis (of a
person), Lilja (on §3 kaª t macla ktl.) 152. No earlier proposal satisfies:
cr©eqai c1 (Stefanis (1994a) 113), coni. Coray, jogg©zeqai (or p-) Coray,
le©jeqai Darvaris, xur©zeqai Hartung, poxÅeqai Naber, ur©zeqai Diels,
jadizeqai Latte ap. Steinmetz, and worse.
6 kaª citwn©kon pacÆn kaª ¬mtion j»dra lept¼n kaª khl©dwn met¼n
nabal»meno e« gorn xelqe±n: the citwn©ko, resembling a shirt or vest,
is worn beneath the ¬mtion (XXV.2; Stone, Costume 170–2, Geddes 312). In the
fourth century the word replaces (and is synonymous with) citÛn (MacDowell
on D. 21.216). The epithets pacÅ and lept» are contrasted with each other
(‘coarse and fine’, ‘thick and thin’: Pl. Cra. 389b leptäi ¬mat©wi £ pace±,
Hes. Op. 497). Presumably a fine undergarment and a thick cloak (pace±a
cla±na Theopomp.Com. 11) would be less offensive. It is idle to alter the
epithets in the hope of giving this sentence a clearer connection with what
precedes: tracÆn . . . lepr»n F. W. Schmidt (Verisimilia (Neu-Strelitz 1886) 14,
cl. Polyaen. 6.12 diploi¹da . . . trace±an kaª çupäan), pluton for lept»n
Naber.
Stein 213 is wrong to defend present part. naball»meno (V), here and
at XXI.8, by adducing the passages cited by KG 1.200 (present part. with
imperfect sense; XIV.5n.) and by R. Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts (Göttingen
1976) 157–9 (present part. of verbs expressing motion, conveyance, perception).
392
A better analogy is Ar. Ec. 97 naballomnh ‘clothed in a ¬mtion’, discussed on

IV.4 (p. 210 n. 27). But the sense ‘clothed’ is given by perfect nabeblhmno
at IV.4, XXVI.4. Aorist nabal»meno (‘after putting on’) is more natural
both here and at XXI.8 (see on II.10 pibalqai). Since the verb is strictly
appropriate only to ¬mtion (IV.4n.) not to citwn©kon, there is a zeugma or
the text is faulty (pacÆn <cwn> Meier 1842).
7 kaª e« ½rniqok»pou t¦ mhtr¼ xelqoÅh blajhm¦ai: alternatively

x (for e« x V) with e«elqoÅh (Sakolowski, but with e« not x), so that he
blasphemes to his mother’s face when she has returned home (e«elqe±n in this
sense, X.12n.) rather than behind her back when she has gone out. The ellipse
is much commoner with e« (as XXII.6) than with k (H. Od. 18.299, Ar. Pax
1154, Pl. 84, Pl. Prtg. 326c; KG 1.268–9, Schwyzer 2.120, P. T. Stevens, Colloquial
Expressions in Euripides (Wiesbaden 1976) 27–8). For ½rniqok»po, XVI.11 n.
8 kaª eÉcomnwn kaª pend»ntwn kbale±n t¼ potrion: for the participles

with indefinite personal subject unexpressed, XIV.7n. For kbale±n ‘drop’,
X.6n. An item dropped during a religious rite, so far from being a laughing
matter, ought to bode ill (Plu. Crass. 19.6, Fest. p. 64M caduca auspicia dicunt, cum
aliquid in templo excidit, ueluti uirga e manu).
kaª gelai ãper te±»n ti pepoihkÛ: he treats his clumsiness as some-
thing amusing and smart. For te±»n ti, Ar. Ra. 5, 901, Posidipp. 2, Plu. 80f
poia ti car©en kaª te±on (cf. Men. Sam. 364, 657, fr. 340.1, Ribbeck,
‘Agroikos’ 46–8); for the expression as a whole, Lys. 24.18 ãper ti kal¼n
poiän. Although Þ terti»n ti (V) is linguistically unexceptionable (Luc.
DMort. 7.1 terti»n ti pcei), it gives inferior sense. To drop a cup during
a prayer and libation may well be ‘something portentous’, but it would be odd
to laugh because one regarded it as that. Bernhard proposed his admirable
conjecture ãper te±»n ti in a letter of 1747 to Reiske (Reiske, Lebensbeschrei-
bung 268; cf. Briefe 223), then in his edition of Thomas Magister (Leiden 1757)
117. For the corruption (ei/i), XVIII.4n.
9 kaª aÉloÅmeno d krote±n ta± cerª m»no tän llwn: for aÉloÅ-
meno, XX.10, LSJ i.2 (add Philetaer. 17.1, Apollod.Car. 5.13). No need for
aÉloumnwn (Unger 1886), giving the same construction as §8. The girl per-
haps supposes that he is applauding, a regular sense of krote±n (XI.3n.); but
unteret©zein proves that he is clapping in accompaniment to the music. m»no
tän llwn is a regular expression: D. 14.3, 18.196, 20.62, 21.223, al., Men.
fr. 602.1, Rehdantz on Lycurg. 67 (Anhang p. 146); cf. XXX.7 lcita . . .
tän llwn.
kaª unteret©zein kaª pitimn t¦i aÉlhtr©di Âti oÌtw tacÆ paÅato:
with unteret©zein cf. XXVII.15 aÉt¼ aËtäi teret©zwn. The aÉlhtr©
393
COMMENTARY
(XI.8n.) has stopped either because she infers from his applause that he regards
the performance as over or because she is put off her stride by his clapping
and humming. Since pitimn cannot introduce an indirect question (not ‘ask
reprovingly why’, as Jebb, Ussher, and Rusten take it), it must be followed not
by t© (V) but by Âti, as often (Isoc. 4.131, 5.128, al., Pl. Tht. 169d, Is. 2. 23, 37,
D. Prooem. 29.2, Arist. Po. 1460b 33, Pol. 1285 a 38, 1342 b 23, Ath. 36.2). Defence
of oÉ tacÅ (V) is futile; and optative paÅaito (V) after present leading verb is
impossible (XVIII.5n.). oÌtw was proposed by Coray, in an unpublished ms.
note (di Salvo 32), before Kayser 1860, Eberhard 1865, Cobet 1874; paÅato
only by Kayser.
10 kaª poptÅai d boul»meno Ëpr t¦ trapzh proptÅai täi

o«noc»wi: Ëpr t¦ trapzh (gen. as XVI.3 Ëpr t¦ ¾doÓ) is to be taken
with proptÅai, not with poptÅai. When he wishes to spit, he shows his
vulgarity by spitting across the table, with the result that he hits the waiter.
To say that he hits the waiter ‘while wishing to spit across the table’ is inept.
Rightly Stein 205 n. 4.
394
XX
T H E D I S AG R E E A B L E M A N
Introductory note
ìAhd and hd©a embrace many different kinds of unpleasantness. The
unpleasantness described here is of a specific kind, and is prompted by specific
causes. The ìAhd creates annoyance and inconvenience, or acts and speaks
without tact and good taste, and he does so because he is insensitive or indif-
ferent to the feelings of others. His behaviour is of a kind which is not peculiar
to him. Each element would fit some other character: for example, §2–§3 the
*kairo (XII), §4 the ë Uperjano (XXIV), §5–§7 and §10b the Bdelur»
(XI), §9–§10a the Mikrojil»timo (XXI) or the ìAlazÛn (XXIII). But each of
these characters behaves as he does because of a trait peculiar to himself.
[1 ] Definition
Stein suggests that the definition is formulated on the model of, and to provide
a contrast with, def. V (rkeia) nteuxi oÉk pª täi belt©twi ¡don¦
parakeutik.
Þ Ârwi labe±n: def. I n.
nteuxi: def. V n.
lÅph poihtik neu blbh: ‘pain’ appears also in def. XII, XIX. The
appended neu blbh (cf. X. An. 2.6.6 neu a«cÅnh kaª blbh, and Isoc.
1.24, 2.25, [Pl.] Ep. 317d met blbh) does not imply any contrast with XII
and XIX, for the *kairo and the Ducer are equally harmless.
2 ge©rein rti kaqeÅdonta e«elqÜn ¯na aÉtäi lal¦i: for the singular part.
without article, II.2n. For lal¦i, Introd. Note to VII.
3 kaª ngeqai ¢dh mllonta kwlÅein: cf. Ar. Lys. 607 kwlÅei ngeqai,
X. HG 1.1.12 ngeqai ¢dh aÉtoÓ mllonto. ¢dh is regularly combined
with mllein: e.g. Ar. V. 1346, Ra. 517–18, Th. 4.66.3, al., Isoc. 15.88, Pl.
Smp. 174e, X. HG 2.3.6, An. 3.1.8, D. 47.49, [Arist.] Ath. 45.1, Pr. 953 a 1. d
(V) gives unwanted emphasis after ngeqai; elsewhere it follows an adverb
or conjunction (II.4 Þ, III.3 e²ta, XIV.12 Âte) or numerical adj. (XXIII.4
tritt); for its use in spurious passages, epil. I n.; in T.’s other works, Müller
(1874) 42–9. The alternative to ¢dh is d (Darvaris); for kaª . . . d, I.2n., VI.9n.
For plural mllonta without article, VI.2–3n. mllonta (Casaubon) could
395
COMMENTARY
be right; but shift between sing. (kaqeÅdonta) and plural is found elsewhere
(XI.6 ∼ 7; XII.2, 4, 7 ∼ 9, 11).
4 kaª proelq»ntwn de±qai pice±n w n peripathi: proelqÛn (V),

‘after approaching’, sc. those who are about to set sail, is a pointless detail;
and de±qai pice±n then duplicates ngeqai kwlÅein. We have moved on
to a new scene, and the persons who are asked to wait must be specified.
Since proelqÛn, with specification of the person or place approached, sets
the scene elsewhere (I.2n., XI.4, XII.2, 4, XIII.7, 8, XXIII.7; cf. XI.7n.), we
might mark a lacuna after proelqÛn (Ribbeck 1870) or before it (Stein 208 n. 1)
and suppose that one or more words denoting the person approached have
been lost. But if he approaches others here, he repeats in part what he did in
the preceding scene; for he took the initiative there too. If others approach him
here, there is a welcome change of focus, with the initiative taken by others.
So it is reasonable to look for the object of de±qai in proelqÛn, and this is a
likelier corruption of -elq<»nt>wn (Immisch and Holland ap. Ruge) than of
-elq»nto (Foss 1858). The part. is used in a similar connection (of the person
who approaches the subject) at XXII.9 proi»nta pro·d»meno. There is no
need to specify the reason for the approach, any more than at XXIV.6 kaª
proelqe±n pr»tero oÉdenª qel¦ai. The verb is again used absolutely at
XXIV.10 prorcetai (Schneider: pro- V). For plural part. without art. see
on §3 mllonta.
popathi (Sylburg) is not preferable to peripathi. To keep others
waiting while one goes for a walk is discourteous; to keep them waiting while
one goes to the lavatory need not be. Cf. XXIV.2.
5 kaª t¼ paid©on t¦ t©tqh jel»meno, maÛmeno it©zein aÉt»: it is the

nurse’s function to make the baby’s food digestible by chewing it: Ar. Eq. 716–17
kiq ì ãper a¬ t©tqai ge it©zei kakä. | maÛmeno gr ktl., Arist. Rh.
1407 a 8–10; P. Herfst, Le travail de la femme dans la Grèce ancienne (Utrecht 1922)
57–63, G. Herzog-Hauser, ‘Nutrix’, RE xvii.2 (1937) 1493.
kaª Ëpokor©zeqai poppÅzwn kaª popanourg©an toÓ pppou kalän:
poppÅzein is onomatopoeic (E. Tichy, Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des
Griechischen (Vienna 1983) 261 –3), make an explosive sound with the lips, com-
monly to soothe or attract the attention of animals (S. fr. 878, Ar. Pl. 732, X.
Eq. 9.10, D.S. 1.83.3, Plu. 593b, 713b), sometimes to attract the attention of
children (parepigraj in A. fr. 47a.793, 803 = TrGFSel. p. 8 (cf. R. Kassel,
Kleine Schriften (Berlin and New York 1991) 56), Eust. Il. 565.11 –12 (2.110.17–
111.1 van der Valk) oÉ gr m»non troje brjh ll kaª ¯ppou kaª b»a
o¬ thmeloÓnte poppÅzoui) or adults (Timocl. 23.7, Theoc. 5.89); also as an
apotropaic reaction to lightning (Ar. V. 626), and in kissing (Maced.Cons. AP
5.245.5, Agath. AP 5.285.6).
396
X X : T H E D I S AG R E E A B L E M A N
popanourg©a is unattested, but is a fit partner for maxourg©a, dijrourg©a

(only in Theophrastus), mpelourg©a, jutourg©a (first in T.), and is designed
to further the onomatopoeia (poppÅzwn . . . popanourg©an . . . pppou).
The word which he poppÅzei appropriately begins with the sound pop-.
The image is developed from the literal context (maÛmeno it©zein). By itself,
p»panon (literal at XVI.10) would be a suitable term of endearment, like
colloquial English ‘crumpet’89 and ‘tart’90 , US ‘cookie’. But metaphorical
popanourg©a (for paidourg©a) is indelicate, because it introduces a sexual
element into the image. The image is of the same stamp as Hdt. 5.92h.2 pª
yucr¼n t¼n «pn¼n Per©andro toÆ rtou pbale.91 Earlier proposals:
panourg»teron Schneider 1799, pn rgon Ast, pn toÎrgon P. L.
Courier (La Luciade ou l’Ane de Lucius de Patras (Paris 1818) 214), panoÅrgion
(panourg©on Pasquali) or <plrh> (or met¼n) <tän> panourgiän Foss
1858, panourgiän <ple»teron> Petersen, panourgoÓnto [toÓ] Hanow
1861, panourgiän <met»teron> or <plhrtron> Foss 1861 , pangurin
or pan©meron Ussing, panoÅrghma Usener (before Cobet 1874), pa©gnion
Herwerden, <tän> panourgiän Fraenkel and Groeneboom, kainoÅrgion
Meiser, panourghmtion Edmonds 1929, pnourgon Ussher.
pppou is from pppa, not pppo (Diels, Index s.u.). Cf. §7 mmmh,
VII.10 pppa (conj.). papp©ou (Usener before Navarre 1920) is unnecessary.
Cf. also II.6.
6 kaª q©wn d ma dihge±qai Þ llboron piÜn nw kaª ktw kaqrqh:
q©wn is ‘at dinner’ (XIX.5n.); tiän (Edmonds 1929; cf. XXX.2) is unnec-
essary. For similarly indelicate talk at dinner, Petr. 47.2–6; cf. W. Cowper,
‘Conversation’ (1781) 311 –16 ‘Some men employ their health, an ugly trick, /
In making known how oft they have been sick . . . Relate how many weeks
they kept their bed, / How an emetic or cathartic sped’.
Hellebore acts both as an emetic and as a laxative. ‘Black’ hellebore is
the laxative, ‘white’ the emetic: Paus. 10.36.7 ¾ mn aÉtoÓ mla cwre± te
nqrÛpoi ka© ti gatrª kaqrion, ¾ d tero ¾ leuk¼ di ì mtou
kaqa©rein pjuke, HP 9.8.4, 9.9.2, 9.10, 9.17.3, Hp. Int. 43 (7.274 Littré),
89 OED2 ‘crumpet’ 4.b, c, E. Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English

(London 8 1984) 274.
90 G. Orwell (1931), ‘This word [sc. tart] now seems absolutely interchangeable with
“girl”, with no implication of “prostitute”. People will speak of their daughter or
sister as a tart’ (S. Orwell and I. Angus (edd.), The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters
of George Orwell 1 (London 1968) 71); OED 2 ‘tart’ 2.a, Partridge 1205.
91 Similarly in English, ‘bun in the oven’: OED 2 ‘bun’ 1.a, Partridge 841. The use is still
current: ‘a young wife with one in the oven’ (Zadie Smith, White Teeth (2001) ch. 1).
Comedy has many sexual doubles entendres based on food and cooking ( J. Henderson,
The Maculate Muse (New York and Oxford 2 1991) 142–4, Konstantakos 79).
397
COMMENTARY
Dsc. 4.148.2, 4.162.2, Plin. Nat. 25.54, 56, Sen. Ep. 83.27 elleboro accepto quidquid
in uisceribus haerebit eiecturum deiecturumque; Stadler, ‘Helleboros’, RE viii.1 (1912)
163–70, M. Grieve (ed. C. F. Leyel), A Modern Herbal (London 1931) 390–1,
A. Huxley and W. Taylor, Flowers of Greece and the Aegean (London 1977) 78,
O. Polunin, Flowers of Greece and the Balkans (Oxford 1980) 230–1, H. Baumann,
Greek Wild Flowers and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece (transl. W. T. and E. R. Stearn,
London 1993) 104–5, C. Hünemörder, ‘Helleborus’, DNP 5 (1998) 299, J. E.
Raven, Plants and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece (Oxford 2000) 80–2.
nw kaª ktw kaqa©rein is a standard medical expression: Hp. Nat.Mul. 89
(7.408 Littré) jrmakon Á kaqa©rein nw te kaª ktw dÅnatai, Mul. 1.16 (8.54)
qerapeÅein d cr æde lleb»rwi £ kammwn©hi kaª pepl©wi· kaqa©roui gr
nw te kaª ktw jlgma te kaª coln, al. (J.-H. Kühn and U. Fleischer, Index
Hippocraticus 1 (Göttingen 1986) nw a.i.2a), HP 9.9.5, 9.11.11, 9.20.3; T. Smol-
lett, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker (1771) (Everyman ed. p. 178) ‘The miserable
patient had made such discharges upwards and downwards.’ kaqarqe©h (V)
must be changed to indicative (Navarre 1918). Optative may be used in indirect
speech after a present leading verb only when there is ‘an implied reference
to some former expression of the thought quoted’ (Goodwin §676; cf. KG
2.364–5, XVIII.5n.).
kaª <toÓ> zwmoÓ toÓ parakeimnou n to± Ëpocwrmain aËtäi melan-
tra ¡ col: the allusion is to zwm¼ mla, ‘black broth’, popular in
both Sparta (Plu. Lyc. 12.6–7 = 236f Alc. 23.3, Cleom. 13.3, Antiph. 46.4,
Poll. 6.57; M. Lavrencic, Spartanische Küche: Das Gemeinschaftsmahl der Männer in
Sparta (Vienna etc. 1993) 66–9) and Athens (Pherecr. 113.3, 137.4, Alex. 145.8,
Nicostr.Com. 16.1, Matro 1.94 Olson and Sens (Lloyd-Jones and Parsons, SH
534.94), Euphro 1.8); VIII.7n., Arnott on Alex. loc. cit., Olson and Sens on
Matro loc. cit., Pellegrino 119, Dalby 214. Addition of the art. brings the expres-
sion into line with IX.8 t calk©a t n täi balane©wi, XVI.5 tän liparän
l©qwn tän n ta± tri»doi, XVIII.4 tn guna±ka tn aËtoÓ (cf. XXII.10,
XXX.7), XXIII.2 t¦ rga©a t¦ daneitik¦, 3 tän tecnitän tän n t¦i
ìA©ai, 7 toÆ ¯ppou toÆ gaqoÅ (XIV.5n.). Less likely toÓ parakeim-
nou zwmoÓ, since elsewhere, when the part. stands in this position, a preposi-
tional phrase is attached (XXX.9n.). For parakeimnou, Pherecr. 113.17, Telecl.
1.7, Alex. 34.2, Amphis 30.5–6, Eub. 111.3, Men. Pk. 545, and X.11, XXX.2
paraqe±nai.
If a verb is to be added, it must be <§n> (added after melantra by Navarre
1920), not <eh> (added after Ëpocwrmai by Pauw, after col by Kayser,
after melantra by Hanow 1861). But the verb is not needed here (Navarre
withdrew his supplement in 1931) any more than at XXI.11 t ¬er kal
(sc. §n). KG 1.41 Anmerk. 2 wrongly claims that ellipse of §n (as opposed to
ti) is uncommon. It is regular and unremarkable when the context makes
398
clear (as it does here and XXI.11) that the tense to be understood is past.
Many instances may be found in Classen and Steup on Th. 1.14.3 (includ-
ing Th. 4.40.2 romnou . . . e« o¬ teqneäte aÉtän kaloª kgaqo©, where
P. Oxy. 16 and P. Yale 99 interpolate §an), E. Ekman, Der reine Nominalsatz bei
Xenophon (Uppsala 1938) 40–1, C. Guiraud, La phrase nominale en grec d’Homère à
Euripide (Paris 1962) 318–23. See also C. H. Kahn, The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek
(Dordrecht 1973) 438–41 .
7 kaª rwt¦ai d dein¼ nant©on tän o«ketän: the remark, to be tactless,

is more likely to have been spoken before slaves (o«ketän Courier, §5n.) than
before members of his family (o«ke©wn V; XVIII.7n.); but, since we do not
know what the remark was, we cannot be certain. Cf. IV.3 for inappropriate
familiarity with o«ktai. Same corruption in V (but not AB) XXX.9.
Ep ì , å mmmh: cf. Pherecr. 76.4 å mmmh; on å with voc., Dickey, Greek
Forms of Address 199–206. Less plausible (for epou V) are e«p (Siebenkees),
e«p Å (Petersen), ep ì oÔn (Hanow 1861), e«p moi å (Edmonds 1929). The
latter is very common (in e.g. Pl., X.), but an unlikely corruption here. e²pon
(Ribbeck 1870, Haupt 1871 ) is a very rare imperative: Pl. Men. 71 d, X. Mem.
3.6.3, and a few times in verse (Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides 21 –2).
On mmmh, Frisk 2.168–9, Chantraine 663, M. Golden in F. De Martino and
A. H. Sommerstein (edd.), Lo Spettacolo delle Voci (Bari 1995) 2.20–1, Dickey
81. It is unsafe to surmise that this baby-word is an unsuitable address from
a grown-up son (Golden 29–30); a son (presumably grown-up) addresses his
mother as mamm©a in PCG adesp. 1091.5.
Ât ì ßdine kaª tikt me, t© † ¡mra† ;: cf. III.3 t© tin ¡mra tmeron.
A question about the date of his birth is unlikely in itself and has no obvious
connection with what follows. Conjectures such as <po©a> ti (Schneider),
<po©a> ti <§n> (Petersen), <po©a> ti <¡> (Edmonds 1929), unappeal-
ing in themselves, are based on a rewritten version in cd (Þ po©ai ¡mrai me
tikte for epou . . . ¡mra). And t© ¡ ma±a (Diels) is unappealing, since there
is no obvious reason why a question about the midwife should to be offensive
to the mother.
8 kaª Ëpr aÉt¦ d lgein Þ ¡dÅ ti kaª < >, mj»tera d oÉk conta
oÉ çidion nqrwpon labe±n: if (as mj»tera suggests) something contrasted
with ¡dÅ is missing, this can be supplied by <niar»n> (Fraenkel and Groene-
boom), <luphr»n> (Navarre 1920), <lgein»n, ka©> (Edmonds 1929); or
(to provide a subject and help to account for the omission) Þ ¡dÅ ti kaª
<ma lgein¼n t¼ t©ktein>, mj»tera ktl. (cf. III.3 Þ calep»n ti t¼
z¦n, VII.3 t¼ lale±n Þ crim»n pou; for the word order, CP 1.16.1 lttwn
kaª ma me©zwn, 4.4.1 topon . . . kaª ma qaumat»n). The lacuna is better
399
COMMENTARY
marked after than before ka©, since d is a likelier connection here (VI.9n.) than
kaª . . . d (I.2n.). If these supplements are on the right lines, the meaning may
be something like ‘It (childbirth) has pleasure <and pain>, and it is not easy
to find a person who does not have both’. For labe±n ‘find’, with part. (as here)
or adj., LSJ a.i.4, Diggle, CQ 47 (1997) 103–4. But the second limb of this
sentence carries no conviction. There are many conjectures, shots in the dark,
not worth recording. I mention only Haupt, who detected a pair of quotations
from verse: “Þ ¡dÅ toi” (an allusion to E. fr. 133 Nauck ll ì ¡dÅ toi ktl.)92
kaª “mj»teron eËre±n eÉtucoÓnt ì oÉ çidion | nqrwpon”. This is fantasy:
the wonder is that Nauck endorsed the allusion to Euripides and Kock printed
the second ‘quotation’ as CAF adesp. 427. It remains unclear whether Ëpr
aÉt¦ means ‘about her’ (Rusten), as XXIX.4 and commonly in the botanical
works (B. Einarson and G. K. K. Link, De Causis Plantarum 1 (Loeb ed. 1976)
xliii–xlvi; cf. Müller (1878) 15, LSJ Ëpr a.iii) or ‘for her’ (so most take it; LSJ
a.ii.2). It might even refer to some other noun lost in the preceding corruption.
If changed to Ëpr aËtoÓ (Diels), it needs to be followed by something more
pointed than Þ ¡dÅ (Ast) ti, kaª mjotrwqen eÔ gegon»ta ktl. (Diels)
or Þ ¡dÅ ti kaª <niar»>, mj»tera d ktl. (Immisch 1923, <hd>
Steinmetz). ruqriÛh (Feraboli) for Ëpr aÉt¦ is rash.
9 . . . > kaª Âti: this is a new topic, and the preceding lgein (if rightly linked to
Ëpr aÉt¦) does not naturally introduce it. If only a verb of speech is missing,
kaª <e«pe±n> Âti (Darvaris) or kaª <lgein> Âti (Jebb) will serve. But more
may be missing. No context or company is specified. And yet his expression
of pride in his domestic amenities and his complaints about insatiable friends
will be all the more tactless if he is a guest at another’s house. And such a scene
will provide a contrast to the next scene, where he is the host in his own house.
So kaª <pª de±pnon klhqeª kaª lamprä eÉwcoÅmeno dihge±qai> Foss
1835, kaª <klhqeª d ì pª de±pnon kaª lamprä tiÛmeno dihgaqai>
Foss 1858, <klhqeª d ì pª de±pnon e«pe±n> Edmonds and Austen (the same
with dihge±qai Navarre 1920), <tiÛmeno d e«pe±n> Edmonds 1929. Cf.
Stein 208 n. 4.
yucr¼n Ìdwr tª par ì aËtäi lakka±on . . . [ãte e²nai yucr»n]: the
words ãte e²nai yucr»n must have been designed to stand immediately after
lakka±on (Schneider 1799). They are probably a gloss which has been incor-
porated in the wrong place, presumably because it was originally written in
the margin or above the line. Comparable glosses are introduced by ãte at
IV.4, XIX.4. It is less plausible to delete yucr»n instead (Schneider 1799) or
92 Courier (§5n.) had already suggested Þ ¡dÅ ti, with an allusion to the same fr. (and
Þ ¡dÅ ti t»n for ll ì ¡dÅ toi).
400
to emend (ãte <eª (kaª) t¼n o²non> e²nai yucr»n Foss 1835, 1858). But it
may be preferable to delete yucr»n in addition (Bloch before Hanow 1860), as
an alternative gloss, since ãte e²nai yucr»n is more readily comprehensible
as a gloss on Ìdwr lakka±on alone than on yucr¼n Ìdwr lakka±on; and it is
sufficient to advertise that Ìdwr lakka±on is available, without specifying that
it is cold (cf. Anaxil. 3.1 –2 Ìdat» te lakka©ou. : : par ì moÓ tout© g oi |
n»miz ì Ëprcein). lkko is a water-cistern: Ar. Ec. 154–5 lkkou . . . Ìdato,
Alex. 179.9,93 Apollod.Gel. 1.1, Macho 281 –2 yucr»n g ì . . . cei t¼n lkkon.
Interior wells began to be replaced in the fourth century by bottle-shaped cis-
terns, cut underground in courtyards, designed to collect and store rainwater
from roofs: Phot. L 45, Thompson and Wycherley, Agora xiv 197, J.McK. Camp,
Hesperia Suppl. 20 (1982) 12–13, Arnott on Alex. 184.3.
kaª [Þ] k¦po lcana poll cwn kaª pal: Þ again follows and is
followed by Âti at VII.9. But here it is otiose (the clause has no separate verb
and k¦po is simply a second subject for ti) and should be deleted (Stefanis
and I independently). Not ¾ for Þ (Immisch 1923), which would require cei.
For lcana, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.14 and on Archestr. 11.8–9, 24.18–
20; for pal» applied to food, on Archestr. 60.9–10. The vegetables are not
‘delicate’ (in appearance) but ‘tender’ (in consistency), that is ‘soft’, ‘succulent’,
as opposed to ‘hard’, ‘dry’. Cf. CP 2.15.6 (how to make vegetables like leeks and
cabbages and lettuces t¦i pal»thti kaª eÉtroj©ai belt©w kaª eÉcul»tera),
6.12.12 (of parts of plants, pal opposed to xhr), Hdt. 2.92.4 (of seeds,
pal opposed to aÔa).94
kaª mgeiro eÔ t¼ Àyon keuzwn: here the mgeiro (VI.5n.) performs
a task which was sometimes performed by an ½yopoi» (G. Berthiaume, Les
rôles du mágeiros (Leiden 1982) 76–7, Arnott, Alexis p. 313). For Àyon, IX.4n.;
for the turn of phrase, Philem. 82.2 toÎyon Þ keÅaa, Nicom.Com. 1.8–9
Àyon . . . keuanta mouikä.
kaª Âti ¡ o«k©a aËtoÓ pandoke±»n ti· metn gr e©: for the order
¡ o«k©a aËtoÓ (like toÆ j©lou aËtoÓ and t¼n pariton aËtoÓ below),
XIV.10n.95 Paradoxical or riddling identification (his house is an inn) followed
by explanation (because it is always full) belongs to popular speech and is
93 Read oÉ lkkon ndon (Palmer: e²don codd.), a conjecture ignored by Kassel and
Austin and described as ‘both unnecessary and tempting’ by Arnott, who claims
that e²don ‘provides a welcome second verb to help in governing the long list of
accusatives in vv. 4–9’. On the contrary, after eighteen asyndetic accusatives, preceded
by governing verb, nothing could be less welcome or more damaging to the rhetorical
structure than an unexpected and unwanted verb before the nineteenth (penultimate)
accusative.
94 Not ‘of raw fruit’ (LSJ pal» i), corrected in the Rev.Suppl.
95 I find aËtoÓ in Cantabr. (4 Wilson), where Needham (who first printed it) will also
have found it.
401
COMMENTARY
frequent in comedy (E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) = Elementi

Plautini in Plauto (transl. F. Munari, Florence 1960) ch. 2, esp. 46 = 43). The
explanation as transmitted (met gr ti V) is unsatisfactory. Elsewhere
an explanatory clause introduced by gr has infin. not indic. (IV.10n.), even
when (as here) an indic. precedes (II.2, XXIII.5; contrast mpl¦ai below,
where infin. precedes), so that (as Bloch observes) metn gr e²nai is expected.
But, even with infin., the explanation lacks sharpness. It was condemned as
another gloss by Bloch, Petersen, and Diels. metn gr e© (Foss 1835) restores
sharpness (eª xnwn Cobet 1874 is a needless elaboration). It entails an ellipse
of the infin., which is so straightforward as to be unexceptionable (see §6n. on
ellipse of §n) and is attested elsewhere in T. (Hindenlang 87–8). The presence of
an unwanted ti is explicable after ti· met gr. There is another riddling
identification at XXIX.5. For the undesirable associations of ‘inn’, VI.5n.
Cf. Philippid. 25.2 ¾ tn kr»polin pandoke±on ËpolabÛn.
kaª toÆ j©lou aËtoÓ e²nai t¼n tetrhmnon p©qon: for the change of
construction (to acc. and infin., after Âti and Þ with indic.) see on III.3
kaª tn qlattan ktl. The image of the leaking jar is proverbial, whether
for insatiability (Pl. Grg. 493b <uneª> (add. Dodds) t¼ k»laton aÉtoÓ
kaª oÉ tegan»n, Þ tetrhmno eh p©qo, di tn plht©an peika,
Arist. Pol. 1320a 30–2 lambnoui d ma kaª plin dontai tän aÉtän· ¾
tetrhmno gr ti p©qo ¡ toiaÅth boqeia to± p»roi) or for prodigality
([Arist.] Oec. 1344 b 24–5 (inability to keep what you have earned) täi gr qmäi
ntle±n toÓt ì tin, kaª ¾ leg»meno tetrhmno p©qo) or for wasted labour
(X. Oec. 7.40 oÉc ¾ri . . . o¬ e« t¼n tetrhmnon p©qon ntle±n leg»menoi Þ
o«kt©rontai Âti mthn pone±n dokoÓi;, Philetaer. 17.5 e« t¼n p©qon jroui
t¼n tetrhmnon). LSJ s.u. p©qo incautiously associates these passages with the
‘task of the Danaids’, an association which is not certainly attested before the
Roman period (E. Keuls, The Water Carriers in Hades: A Study of Catharsis through
Toil in Classical Antiquity (Amsterdam 1974), ead. ‘Danaides’, LIMC iii.1 (1986)
337–41). For related proverbs, Otto, Sprichwörter 98.
eÔ poiän gr aÉtoÆ oÉ dÅnaqai mpl¦ai: this explanation is apt and
indispensable (though it too, like met(n) ktl., was suspected by Diels). eÔ
poiän is more subtle than eÔ pot©zwn (Pasquali; XIII.9n.). It is the standard
term used in describing the relationship of reciprocal benefit which properly
exists between friends: e.g. Lys. 3.5 eÔ poiän aÉt¼n x©oun e²na© moi j©lon,
X. Mem. 3.11.4 n ti . . . j©lo moi gen»meno eÔ poie±n qlhi, oÕt» moi
b©o t©, Cyr. 3.1.27 Âra m ma te eÔ poiei kaª ma oÉ j©lon nomioÓ© e,
Arist. EN 1171 b 21 –2 j©lou gr eÔ poie±n, kaª mlita toÆ n cre©ai kaª m
xiÛanta; cf. X. Mem. 2.1.19, 2.6.7, 4.4.24, Cyr. 1.6.45, 7.1.43, 8.3.4, Smp.
8.38, An. 1.9.24, Hier. 11.14–15, Ages. 4.3, Cyn. 12.10, Arist. EN 1169b 10–12, EE
1244 a 4, Rh. 1402 b 5, Top. 104 a 22–31, 118a 4, and the common antithesis toÆ mn
j©lou eÔ poie±n, toÆ d ì cqroÆ kakä (Pl. Men. 71 e; cf. R. 332d, 335a, 362c,
402
X. HG 4.8.4, Mem. 2.6.35, Cyr. 1.6.11, Hier. 6.12–13, Arist. Top. 112 b 32–113 a 19).
Note also XXIV.3 eÔ poia. For the order eÔ poiän gr (rather than eÔ
gr poiän), Blomqvist 115. For mpl¦ai, Plu. Pho. 30.4 t¼n mn labe±n oÉ
ppeike, t¼n d didoÆ oÉk mpplhke.
10 kaª xen©zwn d de±xai t¼n pariton aËtoÓ po±» t© ti täi
undeipnoÓnti: he shows off his parasite, perhaps by encouraging him to
behave in the obsequious manner of the K»lax at dinner in II.10. The name
parito emerges in the fourth century, and is perhaps an innovation by
Alexis. On the word, its distribution, and the roles expected of the parasite,
see Arnott, Alexis pp. 336–7, 542–5, to whose bibliography may be added
C. Damon, The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage (Ann Arbor
1997) esp. 11 –14, 23–36, Olson and Sens on Matro 1.8, Wilkins, Boastful Chef
71 –86, Dalby 248–9. See also the Introd. Note to II.
kaª † parakalän† d pª toÓ pothr©ou: cf. Plu. Alex. 53.3 pª toÓ
pothr©ou, Luc. Pisc. 34 pª t¦ kÅliko, XXVII.2 par p»ton. No transla-
tion of parakalän satisfies (‘in an encouraging tone’ Jebb, ‘wenn er sie . . .
animieren will’ Ruge, ‘by way of challenge’ Rusten); and pª t¼n p»ton (Diels)
is an implausible device for saving it.
e«pe±n Âti t¼ tryon toÆ par»nta parekeÅatai kaª Âti taÅthn, n
keleÅwin, ¾ pa± mteii par toÓ pornobokoÓ ¢dh: neuter t¼ tryon,
teasingly disingenuous, is defined by the following taÅthn, which gives it a less
innocent colour. taÅthn must replace aÉtn (V), because aÉtn is unsuited to
initial position in its clause, whether this clause is marked as being in direct or
in indirect speech, whereas a demonstrative appropriately picks up t¼ tryon
(see on I.2 kaª toÅtoi, III.2n., IV.6n., V.10n., and on XXI.9 aÉtäi). To
replace aÉtn with aÉlhtr©da (Edmonds and Austen, before Navarre 1918) is
heavy-handed, but at least shows awareness that a problem exists. Comparable
word order (n ktl. interposed between taÅthn and governing verb), XVI.3.
Where direct speech begins is disputable. If we punctuate e«pe±n Âti
“t¼ tryon toÆ par»nta parekeÅatai” (Âti introducing direct speech,
II.8n.), difficulties follow. We must not continue kaª Âti “taÅthn” n
keleÅwin “¾ pa± ktl.” (Rusten, though with aÉtn), a most artificial punc-
tuation, or kaª Âti taÅthn, n keleÅwin, “¾ pa± ktl.”, for, if direct speech
is introduced by the first Âti, we expect it to be introduced by the second Âti
too; and, even if direct speech is not marked after the first Âti, the separation
of taÅthn (outside direct speech) from its governing verb (inside) is unnatu-
ral. It is better to mark only “Âpw ktl.” as direct speech: this is, at least, a
self-contained clause, and the only clause which must be taken as direct speech.
“Âpw pnte Ëp ì aÉt¦ aÉlÛmeqa kaª eÉjrainÛmeqa”: for the hiring
of girl pipers, XI.8n.; passive aÉlÛmeqa, XIX.9. A better host would not
have said that the girl was available if his guests wanted her, but would
403
COMMENTARY
have had her already present (Ar. Ach. 1091 a¬ pornaª pra). To mention
the pornobok» was perhaps not tasteful. Now that he has been men-
tioned, the verb eÉjrainÛmeqa takes on a hint of salaciousness. This passage
may therefore be added to the two adduced by LSJ Rev.Suppl. eÉjra©nw ii
(‘w. ref. to sexual fulfilment’), Ar. Lys. 165, 591 ; cf. J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual
Vocabulary (London 1982) 196–8. But to detect a sexual allusion in aÉlÛmeqa
(Lane Fox 148, referring to Henderson, The Maculate Muse 184–5) is wrong.
The verb provides final and necessary identification of the girl; anything more
would anticipate and weaken eÉjrainÛmeqa.
404
XXI
THE MAN OF PETTY AMBITION
Introductory note
Filotim©a, ‘love of honour’, ‘ambition’, is an ambivalent concept: an attitude or
activity which may be creditable or discreditable, selfish or public-spirited. See
M. Landfester, Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen (Hildesheim 1966)
148–50, Dover, Greek Popular Morality 230–3, 236, D. Whitehead, ‘Competitive
outlay and community profit: jilotim©a in democratic Athens’, C&M 34 (1983)
55–74, id. Demes of Attica 241 –52, R. K. Sinclair, Democracy and Participation in
Athens (Cambridge 1988) 188–90, MacDowell on D. 21.159, Hornblower on
Th. 2.65.7, Wilson, Khoregia 187–94. Theophrastus wrote a work entitled Perª
jilotim©a (D.L. 5.46, Cic. Att. 2.3.4; Fortenbaugh, Quellen 110).
mikrojil»timo/-tim©a are attested only here. ‘Honour based on trivialities’
(t¦ . . . pª mikro±, sc. tim¦) is despised by the megal»yuco of Aristotle (EN
1124 a 10). But Aristotle describes no fault fully comparable to mikrojilotim©a.
The caÓno (EN 1125 a 27–32), whom Jebb and Rusten compare, is different.
While his vanity is similar to that of the Mikrojil»timo (Introd. Note to V ad
fin.), his essential nature is defined by a characteristic (he affects a tim which
is beyond his deserts) which has no bearing on the Mikrojil»timo.
The Mikrojil»timo is ambitious to impress others, and supposes that oth-
ers are as impressed by the same trivialities as he is himself. He sets store by
visual effects, and tries to dazzle with the unexpected: a black attendant (§4),
newly minted money (§5), an ox-skull with long ribbons over his doorway (§7).
He is eager for everyone to see how important he is, by sitting next to the
host at dinner (§2), by perambulating in spurs (§8), and by securing a brief but
showy appearance as a public official (§11). His excesses are comic: he takes
his son to Delphi to dedicate his hair, when a local shrine would suffice (§3); he
equips his pet bird not only with a ladder but also with a shield, so that it can
act like a soldier (§6); he gives his dog not only a gravestone but also an epitaph
fit for a foreigner (§9); he is so proud of the bronze replica of his finger which
he has dedicated that he burnishes and festoons it every day like a precious
cult object (§10).
His report to his wife on how well he fared as a public official sums him up
nicely: not ambitious or pretentious at the expense of others, but naively and
innocently vain because he has a false sense of what is important (§11). He is a
sign of things to come: for Athens was soon to be a city of mikrojilotim©a. A
series of decrees, dating from c. 300 bc to Roman times, records the thanks and
honours routinely accorded to Prytaneis because they have performed their
sacrificial duties kalä kaª jilot©mw (§11 n. init.).
405
COMMENTARY
[1 ] Definition
mikrojilotim©a . . . Àrexi tim¦ neleÅqero: possibly echoed by def. XXII
neleuqer©a . . . jilotim©a (s.u.l.). The essence of mikrojilotim©a, the triviality
of its aims and methods, is not well conveyed by the adj. neleÅqero, which
suggests meanness rather than triviality (see the Introd. Note to XXII). The
expression tim¦ Àrexi is perhaps borrowed from Arist. EN 1125 b 7 (how the
jil»timo and the jil»timo differ) n tim¦ ½rxei. See Stein 223.
d»xei<en n> e²nai: def. I n., XIII n.
2 poudai pª de±pnon klhqeª par ì aÉt¼n t¼n kalanta katake©meno

deipn¦ai: the place of honour, as now, is beside the host (H. Od. 7.167–71 ;
Mau, ‘Convivium’, RE iv.1 (1900) 1206, Williams on Call. Ap. 29). katake±qai
is the regular verb for reclining at dinner (LSJ 7, Dunbar on Ar. Au. 463–4);
see on II.10 parakeimnwi.
3 kaª t¼n Ë¼n poke±rai gagÜn e« DeljoÅ: in the time of Theseus youths
on reaching adulthood dedicated a lock of hair to Apollo at Delphi (Plu. Thes.
5.1); and we hear of a Sicyonian boy doing so in the middle of the fourth century
(Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 248). It remained a common practice to dedicate hair
(Burkert, Greek Religion 70, 373 n. 29, Garvie on A. Ch. 6), and Athenians did
so, locally, at the time of their entry on the phratry-lists, during the day called
koureäti, the third day of the Apatouria (III.3n., Bremer, ‘Haartracht und
Haarschmuck’, RE vii.2 (1912) 2118, L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932)
232–4, J. Labarbe, ‘L’âge correspondant au sacrifice du koÅreion . . .’, BAB 39
(1953) 358–94, Burkert, Greek Religion 255, S. G. Cole, ZPE 55 (1984) 233–5,
C. W. Hedrick, The Decrees of the Demotionidai (Atlanta 1990) 28–9, 42, S. D.
Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor 1993) 161 –72, D. Ogden, Greek
Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods (Oxford 1996) 117–18, D. D. Leitao,
‘Adolescent hair-growing and hair-cutting rituals in ancient Greece’, in D. B.
Dodd and C. A. Faraone (edd.), Initiation in ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives
(London and New York 2003) 109–29). The verbs are chosen with care, to
bring out the extravagance of the father’s behaviour. Instead of the expected
‘he dedicates a lock of his hair’, Theophrastus uses an expression which is
unexpectedly mundane: he says in effect that the father takes the son to Delphi
for a haircut. gagÛn is preferable to any of the proposed replacements:
pagagÛn cd, nagagÛn (as if from V) Schneider, nagage±n Meier 1842,
gage±n Foss 1858. For the spelling Ë»n, IX.5n.
4 kaª pimelhq¦nai d Âpw aËtäi ¾ k»louqo A«q©oy tai: for black

attendants (k»louqo, IX.3n.) as status symbols, Ter. Eu. 165–7 nonne ubi mi
dixti cupere te ex Aethiopia | ancillulam, relictis rebus omnibus | quaesiui?, Tib. 2.3.55 illi
406
XXI: THE MAN OF PETTY AMBITION
sint comites fusci quos India torret, [Cic.] Rhet.Her. 4.50.63 (a man pretending to be
rich borrows an Ethiopian; Introduction, pp. 11 –12). Evidence for Ethiopians
in Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries: F. M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity:
Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience (Cambridge, Mass. 1970) 184–5; in art,
G. H. Beardsley, The Negro in Greek and Roman Civilisation: A Study of the Ethiopian
Type (Baltimore etc. 1929), F. M. Snowden in J. Vercoutter et al. (edd.), The Image
of the Black in Western Art, I: From the Pharaohs to the Fall of the Roman Empire (New
York 1976) ch. 3 (this passage, 164). For the construction (p- Âpw tai), §11,
and on X.14 diateinomnou. Not aÉtäi (V), referring to the boy (rightly Stein
210).
5 kaª podidoÆ mnn rgur©ou kain¼n † poi¦ai† podoÓnai: for podi-

doÆ . . . podoÓnai, XXX.8, 13, KG 2.99–100, Schwyzer 2.388. For mnn
rgur©ou ‘a mina of silver coinage’ (100 drachmas), Pl. Ap. 38b, D. 41.11, 49.22.
poi¦ai is either corrupt or interpolated. To take it as governing podoÓnai
(cf. LSJ poiw a.ii.1.b) is impossible, in the absence of an acc. as object of
poi¦ai and subject of podoÓnai. To supply k»louqon from §4, ‘cause the
slave to pay’ (Jebb), is inappropriate. Although a slave might carry his master’s
money (XVIII.3n.), we have moved on to a new scene, and there is no place in
it for the Ethiopian. To supply a non-specific object (‘a slave’ Giesecke, ‘them’
Edmonds) is impossible. In fact, there is no place here for any intermediary:
a man who takes pleasure in paying his debt in new money will not forgo the
pleasure of paying it personally. Deletion of poi¦ai (Pauw; Stein 210–11) gives
adequate sense. There was, however, no motive for interpolation, and we shall
have to suppose that it intruded from §6 below. The conjectures are unappeal-
ing: poq¦ai (also poia) Pauw, pon¦ai Darvaris, peÓai Cobet 1874,
zht¦ai Eberhard 1876, rgÅrion (V? ) . . . por©a Usener, rgÅrion . . .
peripoia Diels, kainoÓ pan Navarre 1918. Conceivably <eÉ>por¦ai
‘have the means to’ (with infin. Pl. Lg. 754a eÉporä . . . e«pe±n, Arist. Top.
102 a 13, 108b 14, 110b 5, 112 a 25, 155 a 37, Sens. 437 a 21). For the sense of the pas-
sage, contrast IV.10.
6 kaª koloiäi d ndon trejomnwi: for the jackdaw, O. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt
2 (Leipzig 1913) 109–12, Thompson, Glossary of Greek Birds 155–8, D. Goodwin,
Crows of the World (London 2 1986) 73–6, Dunbar, Aristophanes, Birds 130–1; tame
jackdaws, Ar. V. 129–30 ¾ d ì Þpereª koloi¼ aËtäi pattlou | nkrouen
e« t¼n to±con, e²t ì xlleto, Arist. GA 756b 22 tän tiqaeuomnwn koloiän,
Pl. Capt. 1002–3 pueris . . . monerulae . . . dantur quicum lusitent. Unless the bird
has had its wings clipped (Stein, citing Keller 110), it will be in a cage, such
as is alluded to by Ar. fr. 446 ½rn©qeion o«k©kon and pictured in J. Boardman,
Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period (London 1975) fig. 244. See also
407
COMMENTARY
W. R. Halliday, ‘Animal pets in ancient Greece’, Discovery 3 (1922) 151 –4. For
ndon ‘at home’, IV.7n.; trjein ‘keep’ animals, V.9n.
dein¼ klimkion pr©aqai kaª p©dion calkoÓn poi¦ai: Attic vases show
birds with helmets, shields and spears (Leipzig ed. (1897) Abb. 9, C. Dugas,
BCH 70 (1946) 172–8, J. D. Beazley, CR 43 (1949) 42–3).96 That he buys the
little ladder but makes the little shield himself suggests that there was a market
for the former among bird-owners but that the latter is an idiosyncrasy. For
p©dion, Hermipp. 15, Men. fr. 676.
Á cwn pª toÓ klimak©ou ¾ koloi¼ phdetai: the relative clause with
fut. indic. expresses purpose (Goodwin §565). The bird behaves as if it were
a warrior scaling a wall; cf. Ar. V. 129–30 (quoted above). The vocabulary is
repetitive (toÓ klimak©ou repeats klimkion, and ¾ koloi» repeats koloiäi).
But the repetition is of a kind found elsewhere in this sketch, a word or phrase
near the end of the sentence echoing a word or phrase near the beginning: §2
de±pnon klhqeª . . . kalanta . . . deipn¦ai, §5 podidoÆ . . . podoÓnai,
§7 boÓn qÅa . . . boÓn que, §9 Melita©ou . . . Melita±o.
7 kaª boÓn qÅa t¼ prometwp©dion pantikrÆ t¦ e«»dou propa-

ttaleÓai tmmai megloi perida: an ox is too expensive an item to be
sacrificed ordinarily by a private person (Headlam on Herod. 4.16, Handley on
Men. Dysc. 474, Gomme and Sandbach ibid.; for actual costs, M. H. Jameson
in C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity (PCPhS Suppl. 14,
1988) 93–8, 107–12). So he reminds his visitors of his extravagance by hang-
ing above his doorway the garlanded skull (tmmai, X.13n.), which would
properly be hung in a temple. See A. E. Napp, Bukranion und Guirlande: Beiträge
zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der hellenistischen und römischen Dekorationskunst (Wertheim
am Main 1933), J. D. Beazley, JHS 59 (1939) 36–8, Burkert, Homo Necans 6,
Greek Religion 65, 92, 372 n. 93, I. Morris, Death-Ritual and Social Structure in
Classical Antiquity (Cambridge 1997) 123, F. T. van Straten, Hierà Kalá: Images of
Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden etc. 1995) 159–60, 180, with
Figs. 27, 32, N. Himmelmann, Tieropfer in der griechischen Kunst (Opladen 1997)
Abb. 2, 32. The prometwp©dion is the front part of the skull, with the horns,
as distinct from the complete skull (boukejlion/-kjalon). That the two are
distinct is clear from Chron.Lind. (FGrH 532) c 38–40. Cf. C. Börker, ‘Bukranion
und Bukephalion’, AA 90 (1975) 244–50 (esp. 246 n. 15). The credentials of
propattaläai (V) do not bear scrutiny (Stein 212–13).
Âpw o¬ e«i»nte dwin Âti boÓn que: not e«däin (Edmonds 1929), since
it is the visual effect of the skull (to which attention is further drawn by the long
ribbons) which is all-important (see the Introd. Note). Deletion of Âti boÓn
96 The discussion by Haupt to which Beazley refers is in Arch.Ztg. 24 (1866, not 1886),
Anz. 215 ∗ .
408
que (Hanow 1860) is misguided. The echo of boÓn qÅa at the beginning
of the sentence looks deliberate (§6n.); and ‘so that they may see it’ (sc. t¼
prometwp©dion) is a triter conclusion.
8 kaª pompeÅa met tän ¬ppwn: the Knights processed on festal and
other occasions (X. Eq.Mag. 3, D. 4.26, 21.171, 174; A. Martin, Les cavaliers
athéniens (Paris 1886) 145–57, F. Bömer, ‘Pompa’, RE xxi.2 (1952) 1904–5,
G. R. Bugh, The Horsemen of Athens (Princeton 1988) 81, I. G. Spence, The Cavalry
of Classical Greece (Oxford 1993) 186–8). They numbered, in theory at least, 1,000
(X. Eq.Mag. 9.3, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 24.3 (p. 303), Bugh 39–40, 155–6,
Spence 9–10).
t mn lla pnta doÓnai täi paidª penegke±n okade: cf. IX.7 pojrein
pr¼ aËt»n, Alex. 130.8 (¯na) pojrwin okade; for the ‘final-consecutive’
infin., XVI.6n. His slave takes home the heavy equipment, helmet, breast-
plate, boots, sword, spear ( J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley
and Los Angeles 1961) 142–51, A. M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks
(London 1967) 104, 109, Spence 60–5), as well as (next note) his clamÅ.
nabal»meno d qo«mtion: while riding his horse he will have worn the
clamÅ, a short cloak (worn above the citÛn) pinned over one shoulder or both
by a large brooch (Amelung, ‘ClamÅ’, RE iii.2 (1899) 2344, Anderson 86–7,
with Pl. 25, Stone, Costume 169, Geddes 312, Bugh 16, with Fig. 1, Spence 11,
200, 269, 325, with Pl. 3–4, 14–15). He now changes this for a ¬mtion, which
the slave will have brought him. Steinmetz and Stein are wrong to suggest that
¬mtion may serve here as a general word for clamÅ. The verb nabal»meno
(IV.4n.) describes how the ¬mtion, not the clamÅ, is put on. The comedy
lies not only in his wearing spurs in the agora, but in his wearing them with
civilian dress. For the aorist (Stephanus before Casaubon), II.10n., XIX.6n.
For the spelling qo«m-, XXX.10n.
n to± mÅwyi kat tn gorn peripate±n: cf. Ar. Lys. 558 perircontai
kat tn gorn xÆn Âploi (PCG adesp. 1146.48 n Âploi peripate±n),
Men. Phasm. 10 Arnott (35 Sandbach) peripate± k[at ì gorn; similarly
kat tn gorn peri(i)nai (Phryn.Com. 3.4, D. 21.104, 25.85, Din. 1.32;
see on IV.13 periÛn). Spurs are not attested before the fifth century (Crates
Com. 40 tragalwt mtix, Pherecr. 54 gkentr©de) and are perhaps
a Greek invention (F. Lammert, ‘Sporn’, RE iii.2a (1929) 1875–8, Anderson
87–8). For n ‘equipped with’, ‘wearing’, KG 1.463, Denniston on E. El. 321,
Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides 60, Euripidea 39.
9 kaª kunar©ou d Melita©ou teleutanto aÉtäi: the kun©dion Melita±on

(kun©dion is the almost invariable designation, first in Arist. HA 612 b 10, Pr.
892 a 21) was a small white long-haired curly-tailed sharp-nosed lap dog, a
popular pet, frequently portrayed on fifth-century Attic vases and gravestones.
409
COMMENTARY
See O. Keller, JÖAI 8 (1905) 243–6, id. Tierwelt 1.92–4, with Fig. 34, Orth,
‘Hund’, RE viii.2 (1913) 2552, Halliday (§6n.), G. M. A. Richter, Animals in
Greek Sculpture (Oxford 1930) 32, with Fig. 166, V. T. Leitch, The Maltese Dog
(Riverdale 1953) ch. 2, J. Busuttil, ‘The Maltese Dog’, G&R 16 (1969) 205–8,
J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (London 1973) 109, S. Lilja, Dogs
in Ancient Greek Poetry (Helsinki 1976) 112–13, D. Woysch-Méautis, La représentation
des animaux et des êtres fabuleux sur les monuments funéraires grecs de l’époque archaı̈que à
la fin du IV e siècle av. J.-C. (Lausanne 1982) 60, 128–30 (nos. 305–34). The view
which Pliny (Nat. 3.152) attributes to Callimachus (fr. 579), that it came not
from Malta but from another island called Melite (Fluss, ‘Melite’ (16), RE xv.1
(1931) 547–8) off the coast of Epirus, is almost certainly wrong (Keller (1905),
A. Mayr, Die Insel Malta im Altertum (Munich 1909) 22–3, Busuttil 206–8).
Dat. aÉtäi (not aËtäi, I.2n.) with teleutanto, as Aeschin. 3.77 t¦
qugatr¼ aÉtäi teteleuthku©a, Th. 3.98.1 ¾ ¡gemÜn aÉto± . . . tÅg-
cane teqnhkÛ, 7.71.7 diajqareiän . . . tän neän to± Lakedaimon©oi
proapÛllunto aÉto± kaª o¬ ktl., S. El. 289–90, Ant. 49–50, Ar. Pax 269,
281 –2, Th. 446, Ra. 986, X. An. 3.4.5, Men. Dysc. 14–15, Epit. 268, fr. 411.1,
Philem. 94.3, Timocl. 6.14; KG 1.418, Schwyzer 2.148. Many, even Wilam-
owitz 1902b, refer aÉtäi to the dog. This is impossible, since resumptive
aÉtäi behaves like an enclitic and cannot stand first in its word-group (KG
1.654 Anmerk. 4): in this position toÅtwi is needed (see on §10 toÓton, XX.10
taÅthn).
mn¦ma poi¦ai kaª thl©dion ta pigryai: on graves and com-
memorative inscriptions for dead pets see E. L. Hicks, JHS 3 (1882) 129–32,
G. Herrlinger, Totenklage um Tiere in der antiken Dichtung (Stuttgart 1930) 106–20,
Gow-Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (1965) 2.90–1, B. S. Ridgway,
‘The Man-and-Dog Stelai’, JDAI 86 (1971) 60–79, P. M. Fraser, ‘The son of
Aristonax at Kandahar’, Afghan Studies 2 (1979) 9–21 (esp. 14 n. 9), T. Purola,
‘P.Cair.Zen. 4.59532 – Two epitaphs for a hunting dog called Tauron’, Arctos
28 (1994) 55–62. A fourth-century grave in the Agora preserves the skeleton of
a dog with a large beef bone at its mouth (H. A. Thompson, Hesperia 20 (1951)
52, L. P. Day, AJA 88 (1984) 25 (no. 26), 31).
thl©dion poia (V), legitimate in itself (Lycurg. 117 poiante tlhn),
is insufferable after mn¦ma poi¦ai, and is unconvincingly defended by Stein.
The punctuation thl©dion, poia (Immisch 1923, Steinmetz) is no solu-
tion (on this Stein is right). If deletion is the remedy, deletion of poi¦ai alone
(Pauw before Petersen) is as plausible as deletion of mn¦ma poi¦ai ka© (Hanow
1860), since the collocation mn¦ma . . . kaª thl©dion is unexceptionable. One
may speak more succinctly of inscribing a mn¦ma (XIII.10 pigryai pª t¼
mn¦ma . . . toÎnoma). But mn¦ma is the whole funeral monument (cf. XVI.9),
tlh the upright slab which carries the inscription (Stein 214–15). Alterna-
tive deletions have been proposed, which entail further changes: thl©dion
410
[poia] pigrya Pauw, poia kaª thl©dion [poia] Darvaris,

thlid©wi [poia] (Navarre 1920, wrongly attributing it to Petersen). Since
there was no obvious cause for interpolation, either poi¦ai or poia may
be corrupt: if the former, the corruption was induced by the following poia
(see on IV.13 rcwn), if the latter, by the preceding poi¦ai (see on V.9
palaitr©dion). For poi¦ai a possibility is cäai (Sitzler, cl. X. Cyr. 7.3.11,
15, 16). For poia the most suitable verb is not pxa (Coray) or pita
(D. W. Triller in J. S. Bernhard’s edn. of Thomas Magister (Leiden 1757) 559,
before Diels) or nata (Edmonds 1929), but ta (Triller), regular with
tlhn (Hdt. 2.103.1, 2.106.1, 4.87.1, 4.91.1, 7.30.2, Ar. Ach. 727–8, Th. 5.18.10,
5.23.5, And. 3.22, 34, D. 20.36, Lycurg. 126, Hyp. fr. 79 Jensen, [Arist.] Ath.
53.4, P. A. Hansen, Carmina Epig. Gr. saeculorum VIII–V a. Ch. n. 108.5–7, 164,
Carmina Epigr. Gr. saec. IV a. Chr. n. 841, Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. 211.3 = Peek, Gr.
Vers-Inschr. 553.3 (iii–ii bc)). With the alliteration thl©dion ta cf. XVI.14
k©llhi £ kÅlaki.
“† Kldo† Melita±o”: kldo has been taken as ‘scion’, on the analogy
of ‘the poetical use of rno, qlo, Àzo, pt»rqo’ (Jebb, after Casaubon;
similarly Gomperz (1898) 15, citing rno and qlo in sepulchral epigrams,
416.2, 866.3, 905.3 Kaibel). But ‘Maltese Scion’ would be an absurd epitaph;
Jebb’s translation ‘A Scion of Melita’ vainly tries to disguise the absurdity.
kldo is a corruption not of an adjective (kal» J. Toup,97 ¾ kal» Darvaris
before Ast, appropriate only for lovers) but of the dog’s name. Then Melita±o
will signify not merely ‘Maltese’ (of the breed) but ‘from Malta’, as if the dog
were a foreign visitor who died in Athens; for ‘X from Malta’ is precisely the
form taken by inscriptions on the tombs of metics (Hicks 132, D. Whitehead,
The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (PCPhS Suppl. 4, 1977) 33; XIII.10n). It is like
describing a Pekinese as ‘Fido from Peking’. I doubt if there is also a pun on
the name of the deme Melite (Honigmann, ‘Melite’ (9), RE xv.1 (1931) 541 –2,
H. Lohmann, ‘Melite’ (5), DNP 7 (1999) 1190), as suggested by Giesecke (and
again by Whitehead, Demes of Attica 342 n. 102). The demotic is not Melita±o
but MeliteÅ.
Kldo is occasionally attested as a personal name, though in Athens not
before the Roman period (LGPN 1.256, 2.262, 3a.242; L. Robert, Noms indigènes
dans l’Asie-Mineure Gréco-Romaine 1 (Paris 1963) 271 –3). But Kldo is not the
name of the dog. A personal name, however authentic, is not enough in itself; we
need a name which suits a dog and, above all, the toy dog of this show-off. And
this dog was not called ‘Branch’. What names the ancients gave to dogs may
be seen in X. Cyn. 7.5, Ov. Met. 3.206–24, Col. 7.12.13, E. Baecker, De Canum
Nominibus Graecis (diss. Königsberg 1884), F. Jeschonnek, De Nominibus quae Graeci
97 Emendationes in Suidam etc. 3 (Oxford 1766) 102, Opuscula Critica 1 (Leipzig 1780) 395,
Emend. in Suid. 2 (Oxford 2 1790) 129–30.
411
COMMENTARY
Pecudibus domesticis indiderunt (diss. Königsberg 1885), J. Löbe, ‘Notizen über den
Hund aus griechischen und römischen Schriftstellern’, MO 9 (1900) 42–5,
Keller, Tierwelt 1.134–6, Orth, ‘Hund’, RE viii.2 (1913) 2571 –2, F. Mentz, ‘Die
klassischen Hundenamen’, Philologus 88 (1933) 104–29, 181 –202, 415–42 (the
most comprehensive catalogue, listing about 250), J. M. C. Toynbee, ‘Beasts
and their names in the Roman Empire’, PBSR 16 (1948) 24–37, J. Aymard,
Essai sur les chasses romaines (Paris 1951) 277 n. 1. Attested names of Maltese
dogs are Murr©nh ‘Myrtle’ (Luc. Merc.Cond. 34), PlaggÛn ‘Dolly’ (Alciphr.
2.19), both suitably cosy Athenian female names (J. Kirchner, Prosopographia
Attica 10480–9, 11840–2, LGPN 2.323, 368; both are found in comedy) and the
playfully inappropriate TaÓro (Tymnes, AP 7.211.3 = Gow-Page, Hellenistic
Epigrams 3618). Kllo (Hicks) does not appeal. Conceivably Klado (C. Keil,
Analecta Epigraphica et Onomatologica (Leipzig 1842) 192–3), attested as a personal
name (LGPN 3a.239, Argos iii bc), a possible euphemism (‘Melody’) for the
dog’s bark (Lucian’s Murr©nh barked lept¦i t¦i jwn¦i), and comparable to
the attested KraÅgh (X. Cyn. 7.5).
10 kaª naqeª dktulon calkoÓn n täi ìA klhpie©wi: he dedicates a bronze

finger in the Asclepieum in thanksgiving for, or in hope of, the successful
treatment of an injured finger. For the practice in general, W. H. D. Rouse,
Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge 1902) 210–16, F. T. van Straten, ‘Gifts for the
Gods’, Appendix ‘Votive offerings representing parts of the human body’, in
H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship (Leiden 1981) 105–51. The inventory
of the Athenian Asclepieum (IG ii2 1532–9; revised text in S. B. Aleshire,
The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, their Dedications, and the Inventories (Amsterdam
1989)) records dedicated fingers (1534.85, 276–7; cf. Rouse 210 n. 8, van Straten
108–13). But an injured finger is no threat to life; and the pride which he takes
in the replica is out of all proportion to his injury.
dktulon (for daktÅlion V) was first proposed (before Naber) by Nast, but
withdrawn in his Corrigenda. A ring (daktÅlion) creates a less effective picture
here. For a good appreciation of this see Giesecke; the contrary argument of
Stein 216 is unconvincing. Rings were commonly dedicated in the Asclepieum
(1532.2, 15; 1533.1, 18, 25, 26, 27; 1534.40, 44; cf. 47.15, 20 (= SIG 3 144);
Rouse 225). But the epithet ‘bronze’, applied to a ring, is merely conventional;
applied to a finger it has more point, establishing what kind of finger this is.
And there is far more comedy in the verbs which follow when their object is a
finger. Conceivably daktÅlion . . . toÓton is a corruption not of dktulon . . .
toÓton but of daktul©dion . . . toÓto (Steinmetz). If so, daktul©dion should
be taken (with Steinmetz) as diminutive of dktulo (like Ar. Lys. 417, ‘little
toe’), not (with Rusten) of daktÅlio. But this diminutive, whether signifying
‘little finger’ or ‘little (model of a) finger’, is less appropriate than the earlier
diminutives klimkion and p©dion (§6) and thl©dion (§9), which designate
412
items reduced to a size suitable for small animals. There is less reason to
emphasise the smallness of a finger or of its replica.
The Asclepieum stood on the south slope of the Acropolis. The original
building, constructed at the time of the god’s arrival at Athens in 420/19, was
elaborated in the fourth century and later. See J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary
of Ancient Athens (London 1971) 127–37, Aleshire 7–36, Parker, Athenian Religion
177–81 .
toÓton ktr©bein tejanoÓn le©jein ¾hmrai: he treats the little finger
with the care with which one might treat cult objects, such as statues, which
were commonly garlanded (XVI.10n.) and oiled (XVI.5n.), though not (what
underlines the extravagance) daily. ktr©bein is ‘rub thoroughly’, ‘polish’ (LSJ
v.1, Headlam on Herod. 1.79; similarly tr©bein Alex. 124.4). le©jein is not
‘polish’ (LSJ i.3), duplicating ktr©bein, but ‘anoint’ (Rev.Suppl.), sc. with oil,
to make it glisten (M. Blech, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen (Berlin 1982) 271).
Cf. Men. Georg. 60 ¢leijen xtriben (‘anointed and rubbed down’ a sick man).
tejanoÓn (Petersen, improving on tejanoÓn pale©jein Meier 1842) is the
obvious remedy for tejanoÓnta (V). Not te jaidrÅnwn ka© (Hicks), which,
though the verb is apt (Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 344, cited on XVI.10 gorai
ktl.; E. Kuhnert, De Cura Statuarum apud Graecos (Berlin 1883) 52–9), reduces
the extravagance and ruins the tricolon (V.10n.). For resumptive toÓton after
the participial clause, XIV.6n.
11 For general comment on this section see the Introduction (pp. 23–5), where
I have illustrated the traditional and formulaic nature of the man’s speech
by comparing it with D. Prooem. 54.98 Similar formulae occur in the ‘prytany
decrees’, mentioned in the Introd. Note (texts in S. Dow, Prytaneis: A Study of
the Inscriptions honoring the Athenian Councillors (Hesperia Suppl. 1, Athens 1937),
B. D. Meritt and J. S. Traill, The Athenian Agora, xv. Inscriptions: The Athenian
Councillors (Princeton 1974)). Here is a typical example, from 228/7 bc: Ëpr
æn paggllouin o¬ prutnei t¦ Kekrop©do Ëpr tän quiän æn quon
t pr¼ tän kklhiän täi te ìAp»llwni täi Protathr©wi kaª te± ìArtmidi
te± Boula©ai kaª to± lloi qeo± o³ ptrion §n· gaqe± tÅcei ded»cqai täi
dmwi t mn gaq dceqai t gegon»ta n to± ¬ero± o³ quon j ì Ëgie©ai
kaª wthr©ai t¦ boul¦ kaª toÓ dmou· peid d o¬ prutnei t te qu©a
quan pa Âai kaq¦kon n te± prutane©ai kalä kaª jilot©mw ktl.
(Dow 29.9–19 = Meritt and Traill 120). See also Hicks 134–41, P. J. Rhodes,
The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 132–3, van Straten, Hierà Kalá (§7n.) 190–1,
Lane Fox 150 (misquoting Hicks).
mlei d ka©: II.9n., VI.9n., XXVI.3n.
98 On whose authorship see F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit iii.1 (Leipzig 2 1893) 322–8,
iii.2 (2 1898) 403–5 (in favour of Demosthenes).
413
COMMENTARY
undioikaqai met tän prutnewn Âpw: the prutnei are the fifty
bouleuta© who are currently acting as the executive committee of the Boul,
during the period (one-tenth of the year) that their jul (one of ten) is in
charge (Rhodes, Boule 16–25). undioikaqai . . . Âpw ktl. ‘manage mat-
ters jointly to ensure that . . .’ (with the verb used absolutely) is like D. 48.19
dioikein . . . Âpw . . . xei, Aeschin. 1.146 prodioikaqai Âpw . . .
ke©etai. But undioikaqai par (V) tän prutnewn is impossible, since
un- is incompatible with par. Nothing is achieved by <t> par tän pr-
(Casaubon). Nor is undioikaqai t tän pr- (Ast) a convincing expression.
Stein argues for [un]dioikaqai par tän <um>prutnewn (Madvig
1868, before Herwerden), and Rusten translates this as ‘he obtains from his col-
leagues the job of . . .’. But the passages cited by Stein to show that dioikaqai
is compatible with par show no such thing: D. 18.178 ¯na . . . boul»meqa
åmen diwikhmnoi (not ‘damit . . . wir erreichen, was wir wollen’ (Wankel) but
‘so that we have made the arrangement that we want’; cf. D. 4.12), and D.
58.19 dioikhamnou pr¼ Kthikla . . . ãte ktl. (‘after arranging mat-
ters with K. so that . . .’; similarly 58.20). Schneider suggested a lacuna
after undioikaqai. Various supplements: undioik<än a«t>aqai
Darvaris, undioika <tn p»lin a«ta>qai Herwerden, undioik<än
tn prutane©an (or t ¬er) a«t>aqai Giesecke.
The change of par to met (Stefanis and I independently) gives an expres-
sion like SIG 3 353.5 (302/1 bc) undio©khen met t¦ prebe©a Âpw n ¡
tl[ei]a Ëprchi t¦i qeäi. Further instances of met with un- are XXX.17
unapodhmän . . . met gnwr©mwn (and perhaps XXVII.11), Ar. Eq. 597, Pax
816, Lys. 1221, Isoc. 7.13, Pl. Ti. 18b, Plt. 266c, Phdr. 234d, Prt. 361 d, R. 464a,
Lg. 639c, X. An. 7.3.32, Smp. 9.5, Cyn. 4.5, Is. 3.14, 8.22, 9.28, D. 21.127, 57.47,
Aeschin. 1.43, 2.78, 148, 149, 168, Arist. EN 1169b 21, [Arist.] Ath. 40.1, 49.3,
Men. fr. 293. The corruption may be explained as an error of anticipation:
met tän prutnewn = par tän prutnewn (see on IV.13 rcwn).
Âpw pagge©lhi täi dmwi t ¬er: religious matters were dealt with at
specified Assemblies ([Arist.] Ath. 43.6; Stein 218–19), and it was perhaps at
one of these that such announcements were made. Subjunctive pagge©lhi
is unexceptionable (XXVII.8; Goodwin §339, KG 2.372–4, S. Amigues, Les
subordonnées finales par OPWS en attique classique (Paris 1977) 172–97), and there
is no need for fut. indic. paggele± (Herwerden), as §4, X.14. But perhaps
<n> täi dmwi (VII.7n., XXII.3n.), as D. 49.13, Aeschin. 2.25, 47 (all with
paggllein); on the other hand, X. HG 1.7.11 has pagge±lai täi dmwi.
kaª parekeuamno lampr¼n ¬mtion kaª tejanwmno: white cloak
and garland are appropriate for a religious ceremony (Aeschin. 3.77
tejanwmeno kaª leukn q¦ta labÜn bouqÅtei) and for a pub-
lic speech (Plu. Dem. 22.3 pro¦lqen ¾ Dhmoqnh cwn lampr¼n ¬m-
tion tejanwmno, D.S. 20.7.2 (Agathocles 310 bc) proelqÜn pª tn
414
dhmhgor©an tejanwmno n ¬mat©wi lampräi, Luc. Demon. 11 tejan-

wmeno kaª kaqar¼n ¬mtion nalabÜn kaª parelqÜn e« tn kklh©an);
G. Radke, Die Bedeutung der weißen und der schwarzen Farbe in Kult und Brauch der
Griechen und Römer (Jena 1936) 57–69, Blech (§10n.) 319, Dunbar on Ar. Au.
463–4. Here the cloak is not merely white but has a bright sheen (H. Od.
19.234 (a citÛn) lampr¼ . . . lio ã), probably because it is fresh from the
fuller (epil. X n., Olson on Ar. Ach. 845 cla±nan . . . jann). Cf. also [Epich.]
262 pr¼ <d> toÆ pla poreÅou lampr¼n ¬mtion cwn, | kaª jrone±n
pollo±i d»xei, tuc¼n w <oÉdn jronän>.
parelqÜn e«pe±n “ öW ndre ìAqhna±oi . . .”: parelqÛn ‘coming forward
to speak’ (LSJ parrcomai vi, preimi iv.2), as XXVI.2. For the voc. ndre
ìAqhna±oi, Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 293–5; å is normally prefixed (Dickey
202). Placing of the voc. at the head of the speech generally conveys a note
of formality (V. Bers, Speech in Speech: Studies in incorporated Oratio Recta in Attic
Drama and Oratory (Lanham etc. 1997) 197–202), and here it suits the speaker’s
attempt to be solemn.
qÅomen o¬ prutnei: qÅamen Herwerden (before Cobet 1874), as D.
Prooem. 54 (cited in the Introduction, p. 24). But imperfect is regular, both
in literary texts (e.g. A. Ag. 594 and (cited below on [t ¬er] ktl.) Pl. Smp.
173a, X. HG 1.6.37, D. 19.128) and inscriptions (e.g. IG ii2 668.8, 282/1 bc),
and sometimes both tenses are found together (the ‘prytany decrees’ (§11 n.
init.), IG ii2 661.9, 17, 283/2 bc). Imperfect is found even where aorist might
seem more natural, for example where the verb to which it is linked is aorist
(Hdt. 6.67.3 que täi Diª boÓn, qÅa d tn mhtra klee, Pi. O. 10.57–8
kr»qina . . . que kaª . . . taen ortn). See also J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen
über Syntax i (Basel 1920) 182–3, Stein 219.
[t ¬er] t¦i Mhtrª tän qeän t Galxia: for the Mother and her connec-
tion with civic life, Parker, Athenian Religion 188–94. Offerings to her by Prytaneis
are attested in Meritt and Traill 180.10 (184/3 bc). Her festival, taking its name
from galax©a, a barley porridge cooked in milk, is elsewhere attested only in
IG ii2 1011.13 (107/6 bc) quan d kaª to± Galax©o[i] t[¦i Mht]rª tän qeän,
AB 229.25–7 (∼ Hsch. G 80, Phot. G 16 Theodoridis) Galxia· ort ìAqnhi
Mhtrª qeän gomnh n ï youi tn galax©an. ti d p»lto kr©qino k
glakto. See Stengel, ‘Galxia’, RE vii.1 (1910) 59–60, Deubner, Attische
Feste 216, H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977) 173–4, N. Robert-
son, Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual
(Toronto 1992) 29, Parker, Athenian Religion 192.
t Galxia is internal acc. with qÅomen, as X. An. 1.2.10 t LÅkaia que,
D. 19.86 t ë Hrkleia . . . qÅein, Plu. Pomp. 55.3 qÅei gmou (KG 1.306,
LSJ qÅw i.4.), and is comparable to the acc. in such expressions as DionÅia
corhge±n (D. 21.64) and Panaqnaia pmpein (Men. fr. 384). t ¬er is a
different acc. (the sacrifice itself, direct object), and with it (not with t Galxia
415
COMMENTARY
qÅein) belong Pl. Smp. 173a t pin©kia quen (cf. D. 19.128), X. HG 1.6.37
que t eÉagglia, 4.3.14 bouqÅtei Þ eÉagglia (LSJ qÅw i.2). So t ¬er
cannot stand alongside t Galxia (festival, not sacrifice). Corruption to t
gr xia (Wilamowitz 1902b; confusion of l and r, VI.9n.) will have led to the
interpolation. See also R. Renehan, Greek Textual Criticism: A Reader (Cambridge
Mass. 1968) 120–2, Stein 219–20.
kaª t ¬er kal: cf. D. Prooem. 54 (cited p. 24), and (e.g.) Hdt. 9.36, Ar.
Au. 1118, Th. 4.92.7, X. HG 4.2.18, 7.2.21, An. 1.8.15, 4.3.9, Herod. 4.79; LSJ
kal» a.ii.2, van Straten, Hierà Kalá 190–1. Ellipse of §n (XX.6n.) is particularly
unremarkable in this formulaic style; cf. X. HG 7.2.21 legon Âti kal t ¬er,
An. 1.8.15.
kaª Ëme± dceqe t gaq: cf. D. Prooem. 54 dceq ì oÔn par tän qeän
did»ntwn tgaq, the ‘prytany decrees’ (§11 n. init.) ded»cqai täi dmwi t . . .
gaq dceqai, IG ii2 iv.1 p. 47 (s.u. dceqai). For dceqai, of accepting what
comes from the gods (including oracles, omens etc.), Ar. Pl. 63, Hdt. 1.48.1,
1.63.1, 9.91.1, LSJ i.2.b; for t gaq, of blessings received or sought from
the gods, Hdt. 6.111.2, Phryn. 16, Cratin. 172, Ar. Th. 310, Ra. 1462, Ec. 781,
fr. 504.14, X. Mem. 1.3.2, Alex. 267.3.
kaª taÓta pagge©la pelqÜn okade dihgaqai t¦i aËtoÓ gunaik©:
like the deluded Harpagus in Hdt. 1.119.1 –2, who ¢ie t o«k©a and then
pericar Ün jrzei t¦i gunaikª t ugkuranta. There are two anoma-
lies in piÜn dihgaqai okade (V). First, okade belongs with the part. and
therefore ought to stand next to it (the two passages of Aristophanes cited
by Stein are irrelevant to prose usage). The transmitted order suggests that it
belongs with dihgaqai. It could do so if it were equivalent to okoi. But
the only two passages earlier than Lucian cited by LSJ iii for okade = okoi
do not survive scrutiny: X. Cyr. 1.3.4 ¯na ¨tton t okade poqo©h (KG 1.547
Anmerk. 2), An. 7.7.57 okade parakeuaz»meno (‘preparing <to return>
home’). Transposition was proposed first by Reiske (Miscellanea Lipsiensia Noua 6
(1748) 661, Briefe (1749) 361), later by Meier 1842 and Hanow 1861. A second
anomaly remains: the part. ought to be aorist, like XVI.14 pelqÛn (contrast
piÛn IX.8 s.u.l., XI.7); cf. Men. Dysc. 133 pelqÜn okade, Lys. 2.6, X. An.
5.6.20, Cyr. 6.1.8, Ages. 2.17, D.H. 3.40.6, Plu. Pel. 8.6. Similar confusion, V.5
e«i»nta AB, e.i.. e.l. [qon]ta P. Meineke salvaged the transmitted words at the
cost of two separate supplements (piÜn <pai> dihgaqai, okade <d ì
lqÜn e«pe±n> t¦i ktl.).
Þ kaq ì Ëperboln hÉhmrei: the leading verb dihgaqai ‘recount’
implies a narrative of past events. So the most natural tense for the dependent
verb is not present eÉhmere± (Stephanus),99 which would represent an original
99 Not c (as claimed by Giesecke); only Casanat. 420 (52 Wilson), according to Stefanis,
and this is based on a printed edition (Introduction, p. 49 n. 157).
416
present in direct speech (‘I am successful’). Rather, either imperfect (eÉhmrei

Needham; for hÉ-, II.2n.), representing an original imperfect (Goodwin §672),
or aorist (hÉhmrhen). We may take Þ ktl. either as an indirect statement,
‘that he was exceedingly successful’ (so dihge±qai with Þ XX.6, XXIII.2,
Âti XI.9, XII.12), or (less naturally) as an indirect question, ‘how exceedingly
successful he was’ (X. HG 4.2.2 t . . . lla dihge±to Þ coi, D. 54.2 Þ
kata ppraktai dihgomai). Since adverbial kaq ì Ëperboln follows, Þ
is more likely conjunction (as in the former) than interrogative adverb (as in
the latter). At all events, not eÉhmerän (Giesecke), which requires taÓta to
be taken (unwelcomely) with dihgaqai as well as with pagge©la, and
is based on the faulty argument that Þ eÉhmere± (hÉhmrei) is an unsuitable
object for a verb which means ‘recount’ (this is answered by XI.9). The verb
eÉhmere±n regularly denotes successful performances by actors, poets, musi-
cians, and orators (for the latter, Aeschin. 2.63 tn kklh©an eÉhmera,
Plu. Dem. 5.4 eÉhmeranto . . . toÓ Kallitrtou kaª qaumaqnto Ëper-
juä); cf. W. Bühler, Zenobii Athoi Proverbia 5 (Göttingen 1999) 105.
Þ . . . eÉhmere±n (V) is defended by Stein and Rusten as an example
of the anomalous construction which is attested occasionally, most often in
Xenophon, whereby an unwanted Þ or Âti is inserted between leading
verb and infinitive. To the discussions of this construction cited by Stein add
H. Fournier, Les verbes ‘dire’ en grec ancien (Paris 1946) 180, G. L. Cooper III,
Zur syntaktischen Theorie und Textkritik der attischen Autoren (Zurich 1971) 69–74, id.
Attic Greek Prose Syntax (Ann Arbor 1998) §55.4.10, and (for a more sceptical
attitude) Cobet, Nouae Lectiones (Leiden 1858) 432–4. KG 2.357–8 lists most
of the alleged examples. Many of them, unlike this, are complex structures,
with a subordinate clause intruding between Þ or Âti and the infinitive. This
might be held to justify the mixture of constructions (if the text is sound) or to
account for the unwanted conjunction (if it is interpolated). In some of them
the normal construction either is found in part of the mss. (Âti omitted at Cyr.
1.6.18, 2.4.15, HG 2.2.2) or can be restored by deletion of a single letter (Lys.
13.9 poiei[n] Stephanus; cf. (not on KG’s list) X. HG 7.4.39 de±[n] Castalio)
or of Þ (Cyr. 8.1.25 Holden, HG 6.5.42 Cobet,100 Is. 6.10 Reiske (Wyse ad loc.)).
Pl. Phd. 63c needs only to be interpreted rightly (Âti . . . ¤xein, sc. lp©zw).101
For Th. 5.46.3 (a very complex structure) see Gomme-Andrewes-Dover ad loc.
Stein adds a passage not on KG’s list: Cyr. 2.1.23 qla d proÅjaine to± . . .
taxircoi Þ toÆ krat©ta d»xanta t txei parekeuqai cilir-
cou eqai. This infin. is consecutive (KG 2.504e), with Þ for ãte (as often
100 HG 5.4.35 (not on KG’s list) gives no acceptable sense and must be corrupt.
101 Discount the two alleged instances of Âti and part.: Th. 4.37.1 (Âti om. P) and Pl.
Grg. 481 d (Âti n F, Dodds).
417
COMMENTARY
in Xenophon).102 Furthermore, dihge±qai does not normally take acc. and

infin. (LSJ quotes no instance, Stein none earlier than Plu.). So our passage
differs from those quoted above, in which Þ or Âti is merely superfluous and
may be omitted. Here deletion of Þ (an alternative suggestion of Stein) does
not restore normality and is therefore not a plausible option. In sum, in an
uncomplicated sentence like this, it is not sensible to impute to Theophrastus
such an anomaly as dihgaqai . . . Þ . . . eÉhmere±n, when normality may
be restored by deletion of a single letter.
102 Numerous examples may be found in KG 2.501 –15. Perhaps HG 3.4.27 toiäide
logimäi Þ . . . n . . . e²nai is amenable to a similar explanation. S. OC 385–6 (not
on KG’s list) is often taken as an example of this anomaly ( Jebb ad loc., Moorhouse,
Syntax of Sophocles 315, H. Lloyd-Jones and N. G. Wilson, Sophoclea (Oxford 1990)
229). But it may be taken (as it is by Bruhn, Anhang §125) as an example of Þ =
ãte, added redundantly after ce lp©da (like E. Or. 52). The redundant Þ in
A. Eu. 799 (adduced by Lloyd-Jones and Wilson) must be viewed in the light of the
redundant ãte at 202. See also KG. 2.5 Anmerk. 1, Moorhouse 311 §4.
418
XXII
THE ILLIBERAL MAN
Introductory note
ìAneleuqer©a commonly denotes stinginess. It is often associated with
naicunt©a, mikrolog©a, and a«crokrdeia (see the Introd. Notes to
IX, X, XXX). According to Aristotle, the mean, with regard to giving
and getting, is leuqeri»th, and excess and deficiency are wt©a and
neleuqer©a: the wto exceeds in giving and is deficient in getting, and
the neleÅqero exceeds in getting and is deficient in giving (EN 1107 b 8–14;
cf. 1119b 22–1122 a 17, EE 1221 a 5, 33–4, 1231 b 27–1232 a 18, MM 1192 a 8–10, V V
1251 b 4–16).
The ìAneleÅqero is a wealthy man, who falls short of what he owes himself
and others and sinks to a style of life unsuited to his status. A wealthy man (so
his fellows may expect) will be generous to the state and to his friends, and
his generosity will go hand in hand with ambition or honest love of honour,
jilotim©a (Introd. Note to XXI). Midias showed that he was not jil»timo
when he failed to make a voluntary contribution in an emergency (D. 21.161).
On a similar occasion the ìAneleÅqero slinks silently out of the Assembly
(§3). He disappoints as choregus, wedding-host, and trierarch (§2, §4, §5).
These are roles in which Aristotle’s Magnificent Man (Megaloprep) makes
his mark (EN 1122 b 22–3, 1123 a 1). The ìAneleÅqero is like the Paltry Man
(Mikroprep), who, after heavy expense, will spoil the effect for a trifle (EN
1123 a 28–9 t mgita nalÛa n mikräi t¼ kal¼n pole±). His behaviour
towards intimates is mean. He denies his children a treat at school and lies to
the teacher (§6), goes out of his way to avoid a needy friend in the street (§9),
and foists a cut-price attendant on his wife (§10). He dresses shabbily, because
he begrudges money for clothes and shoes (§8, §11, §13). To save on domestic
staff, he does jobs fit for slaves (§7, §12).
According to a disaffected pupil, Theophrastus ran an expensive school,
because he required his students, among other things, to dress well and have
slaves in attendance, for this was considered a ‘liberal’ way of life: x ngkh
dei Ëp»dhma cein, kaª toÓto kttuton, ¤lou oÉk con, e²ta clan©da,
pa©dwn kolouq©an . . . leuqrio gr par ì aÉto± ¡ toiaÅth natroj
kr©neto (Teles ap. Stob. 4.33.31 = pp. 40–1 Hense2 ).103
103 See IV.12n. It was claimed that Plato disapproved of Aristotle for similar reasons (Ael.
VH 3.19 q¦ti cr¦to perirgwi . . . kaª Ëpodei). Cf. Headlam-Knox, Herodas
xlviii n. 1.
419
COMMENTARY
[1 ] Definition
neleuqer©a . . . jilotim©a may be a deliberate echo of def. XXI mikrojilo-
tim©a . . . neleÅqero. Meanness is incompatible with jilotim©a: [Arist.] VV
1251 b 12–14 b©o (sc. neleuqrou) qhtik¼ kaª douloprep kaª çupar»,
jilotim©a kaª leuqer©a ll»trio (def. X n., and the Introd. Note). There
is no plausible restoration. Not periou©a ti jilotim©a dapnhn jeÅ-
goua (Casaubon), since it is unnatural to speak of an excess of something
which is lacking; nor pou©a jilotim©a dapnhn coÅh (Schweighäuser
1802; coÅh already Pauw), since ‘ambition having expense’ is an unconvinc-
ing expression; much less pou©a ti jilotim©a dapnhn coÅh (Ussing,
Diels), since ti (def. I n.) cannot stand with pou©a (absence is not a thing of
kinds). Better pou©a jilotim©a dapnhn jelkoÅh. Alternatively, jilo-
tim©a might be a corruption of jilocrhmat©a, which consorts with neleuqer©a
elsewhere (Pl. R. 391c, 469d, 486b, Lg. 747b, Arist. EN 1121 b 14–17). But not p-
ti <jilocrhmat©a> p¼ <>jilotim©a dapnhn lle©poua (Holland
1897) nor p- ti <jeidwl©a> p¼ jilocrhmat©a dapnhn <p>coua
(Stark). For dapnhn coua, other unpromising suggestions: -hn cqoua
Reiske 1747, 1749 (Briefe 361), 1757, -hn <oÉk> coua Darvaris, -h p-
coua Ast, -h ergoua Foss 1858, -hn jeugoÅh Kayser, -hn coua
Ussing. periou©a is corrupt in def. XXX.
2 nika tragwido± tain©an xul©nhn naqe±nai täi DionÅwi, pigrya

mlani aËtoÓ t¼ Ànoma: he presumably wins not as poet or actor but as chore-
gus, a liturgical role, like that of trierarch (§5). On liturgies in general, XXIII.6n.
On the corhg©a, Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 86–91, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 56.3,
Csapo and Slater 139–57, OCD3 s.u., P. Wilson, ‘Leading the tragic khoros: tragic
prestige in the democratic city’, in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian
(Oxford 1997) 81 –108, id. Khoregia, passim. In inscriptions the part. corhgän is
usually added (e.g. IG ii2 3091.7–8 (c. 380 bc?) = TrGF i did b 5 = H. J. Mette,
Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Griechenland (Berlin and New York 1977)
ii a 1 ìEpicrh corhgän n©ka tragwido±, ojokl¦ d©dake Thljeian),
but not invariably (SEG 23 (1968) no. 102 (c. 400 bc ?) = did b 2 = Mette ii e 1,
3 wkrth nqhken, EÉrip©dh d©dake). A choregic victory calls for a
dedication more dignified than a strip of wood with the victor’s name in ink.
Themistocles dedicated a p©nax, adding after his own name those of poet and
archon: Plu. Them. 5.5 n©khe d kaª corhgän tragwido±, meglhn ¢dh t»te
poudn kaª jilotim©an toÓ gäno conto, kaª p©naka t¦ n©kh nqhke
toiaÅthn pigrajn conta· “Qemitokl¦ Frerrio corgei, FrÅnico
d©daken, ìAde©manto §rcen” (did b 1 = Mette ii e 1, 1 b). An inscribed p©nax
was perhaps a common dedication: cf. Arist. Pol. 1341 a 35–6 toÓ p©nako Án
nqhke Qrippo ìEkjant©dhi corhga, W. H. D. Rouse, Greek Votive
420
XXII: THE ILLIBERAL MAN
Offerings (Cambridge 1902) 178, Pritchett 250–3, S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian

Asklepieion: The People, their Dedications, and the Inventories (Amsterdam 1989) 147–
8, Wilson, Khoregia 242–3. At all events, it was not (as sometimes stated) a tri-
pod: this was the prize for dithyrambic, not tragic, choregi (E. Reisch, Griechische
Weihgeschenke (Vienna 1890) 116–47, Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 77–8, Csapo and
Slater 141 –2, Wilson, Khoregia 207).
Plural (o¬) tragwido© (and kwmwido©), strictly the performers, regularly
denote the performance itself (e.g. Ar. Au. 512 n to±i tragwido±, Aeschin.
3.41 gignomnwn . . . tän n tei tragwidän; LSJ tragwid» i.2, Pickard-
Cambridge, DFA 127). Dative (to±) tragwido± is sometimes local/temporal,
‘at (the time of) the tragic performances’, like Dionu©oi (e.g. Aeschin. 3.45,
document in D. 18.54; see on III.3 muthr©oi), but with nikn (as [And.]
4.42 nenikhkÜ eÉandr©ai kaª lampdi kaª tragwido±, and inscriptions)
it may equally be comitative/instrumental (KG 1.434, LSJ nikw i.1). See
H. Richards, CR 14 (1900) 201 –14 = Aristophanes and Others (London 1909)
334–64, A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi (Oxford 1999) 54 n. 37.
tain©a (‘band’, ‘ribbon’) later occasionally denotes items comparable not for
their substance but for their shape (‘strip of land’, ‘in joiner’s work, fillet, fascia’,
LSJ ii, iii). Here it appears to denote a narrow (and perhaps by implication
flimsy) strip of wood, and to be substituted depreciatively for the expected
p©nax. A wooden tain©dion is attested in IG xi 161 B. 51 (Delos 280/79 bc)
daktÅlio cruoÓ n tainid©wi ndedemno xul©nwi (small wooden plaque
for mounting the votive ring, not (LSJ iii) ‘small jewel-case’); similarly, votive
tain©ai of gold and silver (LSJ i.4). The use of the word tain©a is all the more
striking, because it has its own association with victory celebrations: it might
be tied around a victor’s head (LSJ i.1) or attached to his prize (Wilson, Khoregia
243). lin¦n (Koujeas) spoils the effect.
Defence of pigrya mn (V) is futile (IV.10n.). pigrya without mn (cd)
and pigraymeno (Schneider), simply stating that he wrote his name or had
it written on the wood, lack point. pigrya m»non (nescioquis ap. Hanow
1860; also Berg) makes the wrong point. A more ambitious inscription (like
that of Themistocles, cited above) would have included other names beside
that of the choregus.104 But not all such inscriptions did: the choregus alone
is commemorated in IG ii2 3095–7, 3099–3100 = Mette ii e 1 12, 13, 16,
15, 17. And failure to commemorate others is less at issue than cheapness of
materials. mlani (Madvig 1868 and 1871 , but omitting aËtoÓ) conveys that
point brilliantly: a simple inscription in ink for the simple wooden writing
surface. For the position of aËtoÓ, XIV.10n. Against aÉtoÓ (V, Steinmetz), i.e.
104 Not, however, the name of his tribe, as sometimes stated. Again (§2n. init.) it was the
dithyrambic, not the tragic, choregus who represented his tribe.
421
COMMENTARY
the name of Dionysus, see Stein 225. There is no merit in aÉt» (Sudhaus,
according to Diels).
A stingy choregus is taunted at Ar. Ach. 1154–5, Eup. 329; cf. Konstantakos
240.
3 kaª pid»ewn gignomnwn n täi dmwi: p©doi is a voluntary contribu-

tion to the state at a time of special need: LSJ p©doi ii.1, pid©dwmi I.2.b,
Wyse on Is. 5.37, A. Kuenzi, EPIDOI (Bern 1923), P. Brun, Eisphora-Syntaxis-
Stratiotika (Paris 1983) 165–9, A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and
Rome (London 1968) 39–40, J. K. Davies, Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical
Athens (New York 1981) 89, W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War v (Berkeley
etc. 1991) 473–85, L. Migeotte, Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques
(Geneva 1992) 9–46, V. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation
and Social Relations (Baltimore and London 1994) 199–206. For n täi dmwi
(Meier 1842) ‘in the Assembly’, VII.7n.; in this connection, Is. 5.37 pdwken
n täi dmwi, IG ii2 682 (= SIG 3 409) 62 (275/4 bc) Âai pid»ei geg»nain
n täi dmwi, perhaps IG ii2 768.11 (iii bc med.) gen]omnwn [pid»][e]wn
[n täi] d[mwi (suppl. Kuenzi 54–5); similarly D. 21.161 n t¦i boul¦i
gignomnwn pid»ewn. Although k toÓ dmou (V) is defensible (Stein 226–7;
a closer linguistic parallel than those which he quotes is Aeschin. 2.95 t
k toÓ dmou ceiroton©a), it is less natural in itself, and the following k toÓ
mou further lessens its appeal and could easily have prompted an anticipatory
error (see on IV.13 rcwn). Further instances of g©gneqai in this connection:
IG ii2 747.7 with addenda p. 666 (iii bc init.) genom]nwn pid»ewn, Plu. Alc.
10.1, Ath. 168f. See also XIII.2n., XXIII.5n.
nat iwp¦i k toÓ mou pelqe±n: n- iwpn ¢ (V) is incomprehen-
sible behaviour. A man who stands up in the Assembly does so because he
intends either to speak (XII.9n.) or to leave. If he stands and remains silent
he draws attention to himself (Casaubon’s claim that, when pid»ei were
called for, everyone stood up is a fantasy based on this passage alone). The alter-
natives are nat iwp¦i (Needham) and iwpn £ nat (Schwartz,
though he preferred Needham’s conjecture); deletion of nat (Hottinger)
need not be contemplated. With iwpn £ nat, he adopts one of two
strategies, silence or departure. He departs because he fears that others may
call on him to volunteer, as sometimes happened (Is. 5.37, Plu. Phoc. 9.1). His
alternative strategy, silence, is ineffectual: for, if he stays, he may still be called
on. With nat iwp¦i he adopts the only effective strategy. iwp¦i . . .
pelqe±n (‘he leaves without a word’) is like H. Il. 14.310–11 a ke iwp¦i |
ocwmai, Ar. Ec. 527 ßicou iwp¦i, Lys. 1.14 xelqÜn Ýic»mhn xw iwp¦i
(cf. 23), 10.20 o«cetai . . . piÜn p¼ toÓ bmato iwp¦i (cf. 32.18),
D. 7.20 iwp¦i pi»nte ßiconto (cf. 52.6, 19), X. HG 1.6.36 iwp¦i kple±n
kaª mhdenª dialgeqai. These passages show that iwp¦i is not superfluous
422
(Stein) but apt. Perhaps nat is designed to tease: whereas the Per©ergo
(XIII.2) stands up and speaks and promises a contribution, the ìAneleÅqero
stands up not to speak but to slip out. For k toÓ mou pelqe±n, X. An. 1.5.14
k toÓ mou x©taqai, Men. Dysc. 81 p pelq ì k toÓ mou, Sam. 359–60
k toÓ mou | nage eaut»n, Sic. 265.
4 kaª kdidoÆ aËtoÓ qugatra toÓ mn ¬ere©ou pln tän ¬erewÅnwn t kra
pod»qai: a wedding is an appropriate occasion for heavy expense (Arist. EN
1123 a 1, 22) and an excuse for ostentation (Euang. 1). He cuts costs by selling the
meat from the preliminary sacrifice (protleia). A proper host would serve the
meat to the guests at the wedding-feast (IX.3n.) and send portions to absent
friends (XV.5n.). See Burkert, Homo Necans 62–3, J. H. Oakley and R. H. Sinos,
The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison 1993) 11 –12, 22–4, V. J. Rosivach, The
System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens (Atlanta 1994) 86. To sell the meat
is Triballian behaviour (Alex. 243). Cf. XXX.7.
aËtoÓ qugatra is strictly ‘a daughter of his’ (like XXX.19 kdidomnou
qugatra). No need for <tn> aËtoÓ q- (Casaubon), ‘his (only) daughter’.
See XIV.10n.
¬erewÅnwn (Meier 1842) for ¬erwn (V) is exactly the word we want. It
denotes the parts of the sacrifice reserved either for gods (Phryn. PS p. 77.5 de
Borries t to± qeo± xairoÅmena mrh) or for priests (Hsch. I 337 t täi ¬ere±
did»mena ¬ere±a, AB 266.7 (∼ Phot. I 61 Theodoridis, EM 468.41) t e«wq»ta
d©doqai (¬er add. Phot.) xa©reta to± ¬ereÓin Ëpr t¦ ¬erwÅnh). In
contemporary inscriptions the usual spelling is ¬erew-; but ¬erw- (required
by metre in Amips. 7.1, preferred here by Meier) and ¬ereiw- are also attested
(Threatte 1.154, 2.704–5). See P. Stengel, Hermes 31 (1896) 640–3 = Opferbräuche
der Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin 1910) 169–71, id. Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer
(Munich 3 1920) 106, D. Gill, HThR 67 (1974) 127–33, M. H. Jameson in C. R.
Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity (PCPhS Suppl. 14, 1988)
107–8. tän ¬erwn was defended by Wendland as brachylogy for <tän kreän>
tän ¬erwn, like And. 1.91 oÉ dxomai ndeixin oÉd pagwgn . . . pln tän
jug»ntwn. But only one priest is needed (Stengel, Hermes 39 (1904) 616–17 =
Opferbräuche 8), and the ìAneleÅqero is not the man to employ more than he
needs. ¬erän (Casaubon) could refer only to the parts reserved for the gods
(Stengel, Opferbräuche 8, Kultusaltertümer 106, 113; cf. J. Casabona, Recherches sur le
vocabulaire des sacrifices en Grec (Aix-en-Provence 1966) 13–15), and those were not
meat but bone (Handley on Men. Dysc. 447–54, Burkert, Homo Necans 6, Greek
Religion 57). gerän (Holland 1897), although applicable to priestly perquisites
(LSJ 3), is less apt here than the exclusively technical ¬erewÅnwn. See further
Stein 229–30.
toÆ d diakonoÓnta n to± gmoi o«ko©tou miqÛaqai: cf. XXX.16
o¬ diakonoÓnte pa±de, Men. fr. 208.1 –2 toÆ n to± gmoi | diakonoÓnta.
423
COMMENTARY
The part. stands for toÆ diak»nou (KG 1.266), and so there is no need for
diakononta (Meineke). For the position of n to± gmoi, XXX.9n.; plural
gmoi, XII.6n. The concept ‘eating at home’ has a surprisingly wide and varied
currency (LSJ o«k»ito i). Here it is a semi-technical term, applied to hired
servants whose meals are not provided: so IG ii2 1672 (329/8 bc) 28, 29, 33,
46, 62, and the lexicographers (Hsch. O 265 miqwt¼ aut¼n trjwn ∼ Suda
Oi 77, Eust. Od. 1423.6). Cf. Pl. Cas. 524 cum cibo . . . facito ut ueniant (sc. the
servants at the wedding).
5 kaª trihrar<cän t mn toÓ> kuberntou trÛmata aËtäi pª toÓ

katatrÛmato Ëpot»rnuqai, t d aËtoÓ potiqnai: for the initial
part., VII.8n. The trierarch, who bore the heaviest expense of all liturgists
(XXIII.6n.), financed the vessel and in theory had charge if it (B. Jordan, The
Athenian Navy in the Classical Period (Berkeley etc. 1975) 61 –7, 134–7, Gabrielsen
(§3n.) passim, J. S. Morrison, J. F. Coates, N. B. Rankov, The Athenian Triereme
(Cambridge 2 2000) 108–9, 120–6). The kubernth (XXVII.2) was a pro-
fessional, unlike the trierarch, and, though nominally second-in-command,
had effective charge (Jordan 138–43, Gabrielsen 39, 121 –2, Morrison et al.
111 –12). trÛmata does not denote ‘bedding’ (as XVIII.4, XIX.5). The crew
of a trireme slept on land, not on ship (Morrison et al. 95–6). It denotes ‘mattress’
or the like, to sit or lie on during the day; a wooden deck is an uncomfortable
place to sit or lie on. The wealthy amateur pulls rank and, with particular
meanness, saves his own mattress from wear and exposure to the elements by
appropriating that of the poorer seaman, to his inconvenience and discomfort.
Since the trierarch’s station, when on duty, was in the stern, near the helms-
man’s platform, he will be taking his ease under the helmsman’s nose. His
behaviour is all the more contemptible if he has a cabin of his own available
below deck (Morrison et al. 129–31). Perhaps that is where he has stowed his
own mattress, which he will need to bring out at night for use on land.
Although mn is dispensable (VI.9n.), it is desirable in this carefully balanced
antithesis. So mn . . . d §4, I.5, III.3, IV.3, 5, V.5, 7, 8, VI.8, IX.3, 4 bis,
XVIII.7, XXI.8, XXVIII.2, XXIX.4, XXX.7 (I ignore spurious passages).
For the kattrwma (the echo of trÛmata is negligent), Morrison et al.
158–61. -tornuqai (V) points to -t»rnuqai (Blaydes before Diels), the
older Attic present stem, found mainly in poetry but also X. Cyr. 8.8.16
Ëpot»rnuqai (AH: -tr»nuqai G: -trÛnnuqai CE: ËpetrwnnÅqai
D, -tornÅqai F), rather than to the later -trÛnnuqai. See Fraenkel on
A. Ag. 909, KB 2.542, Veitch 607, 610, Threatte 2.619–20, 625.105 Not
-torn<n>uqai (cd), a very much later form. For potiqnai, IX.3n.
105 Perhaps X. Cyr. 3.3.64 katetrÛnnuan (HAG: pkteinon CEDF) and 8.2.6
trÛnnui should be changed to kattrwan and t»rnui.
424
6 kaª t paid©a d dein¼ m pmyai e« didaklou, Âtan §i Moue±a: cf.

Pl. Prtg. 325d e« didaklwn pmponte, Thg. 125a, X. Lac. 2.1; similarly with
joitn or gein, Ar. Eq. 1235, Pl. Alc. 1 109d, Lys. 208c, Prtg. 326c, PCG adesp.
160 (for the ellipse, XIX.7n.). With Âtan §i Moue±a cf. V.7 Âtan §i qa and
the spurious VI.7. This ‘festival of the Muses’ held at school is attested only by
Aeschin. 1.10, alongside a ‘festival of Hermes’ held in the palaestra (Moue©wn
n to± didakale©oi kaª . . . ëErma©wn n ta± pala©trai). The í Ermaia
was an occasion for sacrifices, festal attire, and knucklebones (Pl. Ly. 206d–e;
N. Fisher, Aeschines against Timarchos (Oxford 2001) 132–3). The Moue±a will
have been a holiday of a similar type. The father begrudges a contribution in
money or kind to the sacrifice and accompanying entertainment. Cf. XXX.14.
ll j¦ai kakä écein: cf. XIII.9.
7 kaª x gor d ½ywna [t kra] aÉt¼ jrein t lcana n täi

prokolp©wi: he avoids the expense of an k»louqo (IX.3n.) or of a hired
delivery-boy (j»rtax or proÅneiko: PCG adesp. 803, 804, Headlam on
Herod. 3.12). He demeans himself not by doing his own shopping (IX.4n.,
XI.8n.) but by the way in which he carries it (VI.8n.).
With x gor . . . ½ywna cf. Hermipp. 26, Pl.Com. 206, X. An. 3.2.21,
Smp. 4.41 (all x (or k t¦) gor Ýne±qai), X. Oec. 8.22 primen»n t© oi x
gor negke±n, D. 9.39 panq ì ãper x gor kppratai taÓta, Men.
Sam. 191 –2 pnta tx gor plä | [primeno ¨]k. e (suppl. Austin); and
§10 miqoÓqai . . . k t¦ gunaike©a. For lcana, XX.9n.; vegetable-sellers
in the Agora, Wycherley, Agora iii 198. Deletion of t kra (the addition of a
reader who thought that ½ywna needed an object) is the best remedy for
the defective syntax. In itself t kra is an acceptable object for ½ywna (cf.
IX.4 ½ywnän, of a man visiting the kreopÛlh). But to retain it, with <kaª>
t lcana (cd), creates problems of word order and balance: ‘after buying the
meat he carries it himself and the vegetables in his pocket’. Does he, or does he
not, carry the meat in his pocket? It would be clearer with t kra transposed
before <kaª> t lcana (Ast). <n ta± cerªn kaª> (Navarre 1918, Rusten)
restores better balance than sense: the pairing of hands and pocket is pointed
at VI.8, but here it is trite.
8 kaª ndon mnein Âtan kdäi qo«mtion plÓnai: similar behaviour is

attributed to the Spartan Epaminondas, who na e²ce tr©bwna kaª toÓton
(Diggle, CQ 49 (1999) 641 : aÉt¼n codd.)106 çupänta· e pote d aÉt¼n dwken
e« gnaje±on, aÉt¼ Ëpmenen okoi di ì por©an trou (Ael. VH 5.5). For an
Athenian, staying indoors invited censure: Pl. R. 579b katadedukÜ . . . n t¦i
106 For the same idiom in Latin (et is) see Oakley on Liv. 9.18.9.
425
COMMENTARY
o«k©ai t poll Þ gun z¦i, X. Oec. 7.30 t¦i mn gr gunaikª kllion ndon
mnein £ quraule±n, täi d ndrª acion ndon mnein £ tän xw pimele±qai.
The simple verb plÓnai is supported by XXX.10 qo«mtion kdoÓnai plÓ-
nai against the inappropriate compound kpl- (V), ‘wash thoroughly’ (Ar. Pl.
1062, fr. 708.2, middle Hdt. 4.73.2; LSJ ii). The prefix was prompted by pre-
ceding kdäi (see on V.9 palaitr©dion, XXX.19n., and the Introduction,
p. 40 n. 136); similarly S. Ai. 387 prog»nwn pter] prog»nwn proptwr
(-tor) plerique, Tr. 700 kbrÛmat ì n blyeia] kbrÛmat ì kblyeia L+, Is.
6.45 pr¼ Ëperboln naicunt©a [pro]memarturkai (Wyse); A. Nauck,
Mélanges Gréco-Romains 6 (St. Petersburg 1894) 38. For the construction see on
XVI.6 kdoÓnai . . . pirryai.
9 kaª j©lou ranon ullgonto: for rano, I.5n. ullgein is the regular
verb for collecting contributions (MacDowell on D. 21.101, p. 323).
kaª dihggelmnou aÉtäi: for the construction see on XIV.7
paggelqnto; cf. Pl. Ep. 329e dihggelmnon (O: -ou A) . . . toÉnant©on
(acc. absolute, KG 2.87–90). The verb indicates that he has heard of the loan
through intermediaries. If he avoids meeting the friend now, he can claim later
that he did not contribute because he had not heard of it. dieilegmnou (V),
taken as neuter passive (cf. Lys. 9.5 die©lekto), ‘when it had been discussed
with him’ (sc. by others), is less suitable in sense, and the verb is less suited
to this construction; taken as masc. middle, ‘having discussed it with him’ (cf.
dieilcqai Lys. 8.15, perf. indic. Isoc. 5.81, Pl. Tht. 158c; for the use of the perf.
part., KG 1.199, Goodwin §142), it indicates (unwelcomely) that there has been
previous discussion with the friend.
pokmya k t¦ ¾doÓ: cf. X. Eq. 7.14 (of horses) t» te ½rqodrome±n kaª
t¼ pokmptein, Arist. Rh. 1409b 23 (not, as LSJ says, of chariots) xwtrw
pokmptonte toÓ trmato.
tn kÅklwi okade poreuq¦nai: cf. Pl. Ly. 203a poreu»mhn . . . tn xw
te©cou. For the acc., XVI.3n.; ellipse of ¾d»n, XXIV.13, KG 1.266–7, 2.558–9;
kÅklwi, LSJ i.2.
10 kaª t¦i gunaikª d t¦i autoÓ pro±ka e«enegkamnhi: the same compound,
of bringing in a dowry, at XXVIII.4 tlanton (Dübner: -ta V) e«enegkamnhi
pro±ka and D. 27.4 mhtra pentkonta mn e« t¼n o²kon e«enhnegmnhn.
There is no need for penegk- (Cobet 1854), the compound so used in Lys.
19.14, D. 40.19 (and 20, 22, 24, 60), 42.27, Aeschin. 3.172. Equally unnecessary
are the supplements pro±ka <kaln> (Meier 1842), <tlanton> pr- (Har-
tung), <polln> pr- (Meineke), <plon talntou> pr- (Edmonds 1929),
or tlanta for pro±ka (Münsterberg 1894). Although the value of the dowry
is regularly indicated, either with a specific figure (XXVIII.4n.) or a more
general term (polln Lys. 19.16, Men. fr. 816.2, Antiph. 270.2), sometimes
426
it is not (pro±ka penegkamnh D. 42.27, pro±ka pid»nte Is. 1.39). Here

the bare mention of a dowry more than suffices. A dowry was a contribution
towards the expense of maintaining a wife, and failure to use it for this purpose
(as again at XXVIII.4) is reprehensible. See W. K. Lacey, The Family in Classical
Greece (London 1968) 109, Diggle on E. Phaeth. 158–9, MacDowell, Law 87,
D. M. Schaps, Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh 1979) 74–7,
L. Foxhall, CQ 39 (1989) 32–9, Kapparis on [D.] (Apollod.) 59.50.
m pr©aqai qerpainan: a proper maid, as opposed to the temporary
hireling. A woman of status would have more than one to attend her out of
doors (Plu. Phoc. 19.3); and qerapa©na (Siebenkees, as if in V) is as easy a
change for qera©paina (V) as is qerpainan. But a single maid better serves
the rhetoric.
ll miqoÓqai e« t x»dou k t¦ gunaike©a paidrion t¼
unakolouq¦on: xodoi is the standard term for formal or licensed excursions
by women (Plu. Sol. 21.5 pthe . . . ta± x»doi tän gunaikän . . . n»mon,
Pl. Lg. 784d tän x»dwn . . . tän gunaike©wn, D. 48.55 ta©ran . . . x»dou
lampr xioÓan, ‘Phintys’ ap. Stob. 4.23.60, 61 (2.590.6, 592.14–593.4
Hense = H. Thesleff, An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic
Period (Åbo 1961) 151 –4); cf. Ar. Lys. 16 calep toi gunaikän xodo, Epich.
269.4 jilxodon sc. guna±ka), such as to funerals, festivals, and the like. See
Lacey (above) 168, R. Just, Women in Athenian Law and Life (London 1989) 106–52,
D. Cohen, ‘Seclusion, separation, and the status of women in classical Athens’,
G&R 36 (1989) 3–15 (esp. 8–9) = I. McAuslan and P. Walcot (edd.), Women in
Antiquity (Oxford 1996) 134–45 (139), id. Law, Sexuality, and Society (Cambridge
1991) 152–3, Kapparis on [D.] (Apollod.) 59.24.
For k t¦ gunaike©a see on II.9 k gunaike©a gor. No need for
<gor> here (Coray, Schneider). The same ellipse is found with ½y»pwli
(Clearch. fr. 57 Wehrli ap. Ath. 6a, Plu. Timol. 14.3) and «cqu»pwli ([Plu.]
849e).
I substitute paid<r>ion (XXIII.2, XXX.8) for paid©on (V), which, though
elsewhere sometimes ‘slave’ (LSJ ii), in this work is always ‘child’ (XVI.12n.).
Same corruption XXX.8 (Torraca (1974) 94), [D.] (Apollod.) 59.42, 50,
Men. fr. 210. For the article (omitted, through oversight, by Siebenkees) with
unakolouq¦on, XVIII.2n.
11 kaª t Ëpodmata palimpxei kekattumna jore±n: when the soles come

off his shoes he has them stitched back. By the time re-stitching is needed the
soles will be worn. But he is too mean to buy new soles. The stitching back of
old soles, to judge by the terminology available to describe it, must have been
common practice, at least among the less wealthy.
Ëpodmata palimpxei kekattumna means ‘shoes stitched with refixing’,
i.e. with the soles stitched back. kattÅein is ‘stitch (leather)’, of shoemakers;
427
COMMENTARY
hence kttuma, ‘stitched leather’, of a sole, and Ëpodhmtwn kttui (IG

ii2 1672.190, 230, c. 330 bc).107 Theophrastus favoured a Ëp»dhma . . . kt-
tuton (Teles, cited in the Introd. Note). pal©mphxi is not elsewhere attested,
but comedy (PCG adesp. 790 = Poll. 6.164, 7.82) used pal©mphga for ‘old
soles’ (t palai kattÅmata), that is old soles stitched back. Similarly palin-
dor©a ‘stitched back leather (sole)’ (Pl.Com. 180; cf. Poll. locc. cit.). To stitch
on new soles is pikattÅein (PCG adesp. 599 = Phryn. PS p. 69.14–16 de
Borries; cf. Poll. 7.82). See further A. A. Bryant, HSCPh 10 (1899) 71 –2, 80–1,
H. Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und
Römern 1 (Leipzig and Berlin 2 1912) 281, O. Lau, Schuster und Schusterhandwerk in
der griechisch-römischen Literatur und Kunst (Bonn 1967) 45, Stein 237–8.
kaª lgein Âti krato oÉdn diajrei: the *groiko makes a similar
attempt to forestall criticism (IV.2). Horn is a byword for hardness: H. Od.
19.211 –12 ½jqalmoª d ì Þ e« kra taan ©dhro | trma n blejroii
(William Godwin, Caleb Williams (1794) vol. 3 ch. 5, ‘Eyes of horn and hearts
of steel’), Luc. VH 1 14 rrhkton . . . g©gnetai toÓ qrmou t¼ lpo ãper
kra, Alex. 21 xhr¼n g©gnetai kaª krato, mllon d idrou, pagiÛteron,
Petr. 134.11 tam rigidum . . . quam cornu.
12 kaª nat tn o«k©an kallÓnai: nat is ‘getting up from bed’

(LSJ b.i.2), as XVIII.4. Housework is done in the early morning, by those
for whom housework is appropriate. Cf. Luc. DD 4.1 (Hermes complains)
wqen . . . xanatnta a©rein de± t¼ ump»ion. No need for kaª <prÜi
d ì > nat (Herwerden). For kallÓnai ‘sweep clean (with a broom)’ see on
X.6 kallÅmata. Sweeping is the work of slaves (H. Od. 20.149, E. Phaeth. 56,
Phryn.Com. 39; cf. E. Ion 112ff.), and a symbol for how low the mighty have
fallen (E. Cycl. 29–35, Andr. 166, Hec. 363, Hyps. fr. i.ii.17 Bond = 34 Diggle,
TrGFSel p. 138). Cf. D. 18.258 (Aeschines, who swept the schoolroom) o«ktou
txin, oÉk leuqrou paid¼ cwn.
kaª t kl©na kkor©ai: ‘rid the couches of bugs’. The verb is used liter-
ally by Parmenion, AP 9.113.2 (Gow-Page, Garland of Philip 2599) toÆ k»ri
kkor©a, figuratively by Ar. fr. 277 t© å ponhr mì kkor©zei Þpereª (Bergk:
xor©zei ãper codd.) | klintrion;, Eup. 247.4 t¼n kÅqon kkor©zein. As
object, kl©na (X.6n.) suits kkor©ai, since k»ri is the bed-bug, cimex lec-
tularius (Mart. 11.32.1 tritus cimice lectus; W. Richter, ‘Wanze’, RE Suppl. xiv
(1974) 822–5, M. Davies and J. Kathirithamby, Greek Insects (London 1986)
46–7, I. C. Beavis, Insects and Other Invertebrates in Classical Antiquity (Exeter
1988) 104–6, C. Hünemörder, ‘Wanze’, DNP 12.2 (2002) 394). It does not suit
kkor¦ai (V), ‘sweep out (with a broom)’. This verb requires house or the like
as object (H. Od. 20.149 däma, Ar. Pax 59 ëEllda, Eup. 167 aÉln, D. 18.258
107 kttui (only here) not in LSJ, but in Rev.Suppl. Cf. Pritchett 204.
428
paidagwge±on). To give it such an object by inverting the verbs (tn o«k©an

kkor¦ai kaª t kl©na kallÓnai Pauw) is less satisfactory, since the verbs
(which both refer to sweeping) are insufficiently varied in sense. For the cor-
ruption (h/i), X.14n.
13 kaª kaqez»meno paratryai t¼n tr©bwna, Án aÉt¼n jore±: the tr©bwn

was a short cheap cloak, worn by the poor, ascetics, and Spartans (Wyse
on Is. 5.11, E. Schuppe, ‘Tribon’, RE vi.2a (1937) 2415–19, Pritchett 207–8,
MacDowell on Ar. V. 33, Stone, Costume 162–3, Geddes 320, L. Battezzato, ICS
24–5 (1999–2000) 349). What action is described by paratryai, and what
is the purpose of that action, are disputed. The purpose cannot be to con-
ceal stains (Casaubon, Schneider) or to stop the cloak from getting dirty on the
ground (Fischer), for he is concerned not with appearances but with economies.
The purpose will be to save the cloak from unnecessary wear. Rightly, so far
as they go, Coray (‘tourner en sens contraire, comme on retourne son habit quand
on veut, par exemple, s’asseoir, afin d’en conserver la surface externe toujours
propre’) and Jebb (‘he “twists aside” the already well-worn cloak simply in
order to save it from further attrition’), the latter commended by Stein 240–1.
But the verb calls for more precise definition. It means that he turns up the
edge of the cloak. This meaning, though not attested, may be inferred from
the nouns paratroj ([Gal.] 18a.776 Kühn) and paratroj© (Sor. Gyn.
2.14.5, Hsch. L 493),108 not ‘selvage’ (LSJ) but ‘hem’ (defined by OED2 as
‘border made on a piece of cloth by doubling or turning in the edge itself’).
The cloak is a short one, and he turns back just so much of it as will ensure
that he does not sit on it. Since he wears nothing underneath, this may be
uncomfortable for him and unsightly for others (cf. IV.4).109
aÉt»n (Münsterberg 1895) indicates that he wears the tr©bwn on its own
(LSJ aÉt» i.3, KG 1.652–3, Headlam on Herod. 6.70; cf. XXVI.3), with-
out a citÛn or citwn©ko as undergarment (XIX.6n.), like Agesilaus, who is
described as c©twn . . . t¼n tr©bwna peribal»meno (Faber: -ball- codd.:
see on II.10 pibalqai) aÉt»n (Ael. VH 7.13; cf. Plu. 210b, Lyc. 16.12). Out-
side Sparta only a hardy few dispensed with the citÛn: Socrates (X. Mem.
1.6.2), Gelon (D.S. 11.26.5), Antisthenes (D.L. 6.13), Cleanthes (D.L. 7.169);
Stone, Costume 172. aÉt» (V) is indefensible: ‘which he himself wears’ gives a
wrong emphasis; and the notion that he himself (as opposed to a slave: II.11)
108 I do not understand Hsch. E 5021 p©xulon· [t¼] piparatroj©da toÓ Ëjainom-
nou ¬mat©ou (Latte’s text). Perhaps t¼ pª paratroj©di Ëjain»menon toÓ ¬mat©ou
(cf. L 493 lgnh· t¼ parujain»menon t¦i paratroj©di).
109 Also used with a specialised sense in relation to clothing (‘turn inside out’) are
natrjein (Luc. Gall. 9) and ktrjein (Srv Ar. Nu. 88). The purpose of turning a
garment inside out was not ‘to double its life’ (Dover on Nu. 88, wrongly imputing
this notion to Srv ) but to conceal the dirty side (Luc.).
429
COMMENTARY
brings an old tr©bwn which he folds up (paratryai) to use as a cushion

(Schweighäuser 1802, Ast, Navarre 1918) merits no consideration. To trans-
pose aÉt» after nat (Herwerden) leaves Án jore± otiose. Further wild
conjectures: niautojore± Immisch 1898, <qrou kaª ceimäno> t¼n aÉt¼n
jore± Immisch 1923 (not taÉt¼n, a misprint corrected by Immisch ap. Holland
1923), tautojore± Immisch ap. Holland 1923.
430
XXIII
T H E B OA S T F U L M A N
Introductory note
ìAlazone©a is surveyed exhaustively by O. Ribbeck, Alazon: ein Beitrag zur antiken
Ethologie (Leipzig 1886); more briefly and incisively by D. MacDowell, ‘The
Meaning of lazÛn’, in E. M. Craik (ed.), ‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on Classical
Subjects presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford 1990) 287–92. On the lazÛn
as soldier (Ribbeck 26–41) add J. A. Hanson, ‘The Glorious Military’, in
T. A. Dorey and D. R. Dudley (edd.), Roman Drama (London 1965) 51 –85,
W. Hofmann and G. Wartenberg, Der Bramarbas in der antiken Komödie (Berlin
1973); on etymology (Ribbeck 76–7, MacDowell 289–90), M. L. West, ZPE
102 (1994) 2 n. 8, id. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry
and Myth (Oxford 1997) 496.
In the fifth century (largely Old Comedy) lazÛn describes a man who
claims superior knowledge or skill and exploits that claim for self-serving
ends, a ‘charlatan’, ‘impostor’. In the fourth century the word is applied more
generally, without reference to specific expertise, and is sometimes synony-
mous with ‘liar’, sometimes with ‘boaster’. Aristotle opposes lazone©a to
e«rwne©a, with ‘truthfulness’ as the mean between them: the erwn pretends
to less than the truth, the lazÛn to more. See the Introd. Note to I. The
lazÛn of Aristotle is prompted by desire either for reputation or for gain
(EN 1127 b 9–22). The ìAlazÛn of Theophrastus has no desire for gain. His
motive is self-glorification, and he boasts of non-existent wealth and pow-
erful connections. Xenophon had applied the word to men who pretend,
among other things, to be more wealthy than they are (Cyr. 2.2.12). [Cic.] Rhet.
Her. 4.63–4 has a portrait of the ostentatorem pecuniae gloriosum (Introduction,
pp. 11 –12).
For the historical allusions in this sketch see the Introduction, pp. 27–9.
[1 ] Definition
prodok©a (V) ‘expectation’ is indefensible. Hsch. P 3703 prodcetai·
propoie±tai does not license prodok©a as a synonym of propo©hi. There
is no appeal in prodok©a ti <doxh p ì > gaqän (Immisch 1923). There
are two possibilities. Either (i) write propo©hi (def. I n.). This and cognate
words appear constantly in definitions or discussions of lazone©a: e.g. [Pl.]
Def. 416a lazone©a xi propoihtik gaqoÓ £ gaqän tän m Ëpar-
c»ntwn (Ingenkamp 101), X. Cyr. 2.2.12 ¾ . . . lazÜn moige doke± Ànoma
431
COMMENTARY
ke±qai pª to± propoioumnoi kaª plouiwtroi e²nai £ e«ª ktl., Arist.
EN 1108a 21 propo©hi . . . pª t¼ me±zon, 1127 a 21 propoihtik¼ tän
nd»xwn . . . kaª m Ëparc»ntwn, EE 1221 a 24–5 ple©w tän Ëparc»ntwn
propoioÅmeno, [Arist.] MM 1186a 25–6 t¼ . . . ple©w propoie±qai tän
Ëparc»ntwn cein; note also §7 propoiaqai. Or (ii) suppose (with Stein
244–5) that the writer took prodok©a by mistake from [Pl.] Def. 416a a«cÅnh
j»bo pª prodok©ai dox©a, which immediately precedes the definition of
lazone©a. At all events, a connection between our definition and [Pl.] Def. is
suggested by the appearance in both of the word gaq»n (gaqän oÉk Àntwn ∼
gaqoÓ £ gaqän tän m Ëparc»ntwn), which is absent from Aristotle’s dis-
cussions of lazone©a.
ìAmlei d: II.9n.
d»xei<en n>: def. I n., XIII n. For attestation in c, Stefanis (1994a) 114.
ti: def. I n.
2 n täi de©gmati thkÛ: the market or bazaar where merchants dis-

played samples (de©gmata) of their goods. The bazaar at the Piraeus is men-
tioned by Lys. fr. 75.6 Thalheim k»mian aÉt¼n e« t¼ de±gma n kl©nhi,
kaª pdeixan pollo± mn ìAqhna©wn, pollo± d kaª tän llwn xnwn, X.
HG 5.1.21 kphdante e« t¼ de±gma mp»rou t tina kaª nauklrou
unarpante e« t naÓ e«negkan, D. 35.29 perieptoun (sc. foreign
traders) n täi de©gmati täi ¡metrwi, 50.24 prorcetai aÉtäi n täi de©g-
mati, Polyaen. 6.2.2 untaxe (sc. Alexander of Pherai, 362/1 bc) to± pª
tän neän di tcou propleÓai täi de©gmati toÓ Peiraiw kaª p¼ tän
trapezän rpai t crmata, IG ii2 1035.47 (i bc ex.?) toÓ d<e>©gmato
toÓ nateqnto Ëp¼ Mgnou (restored by Pompey after its destruction by
Sulla?), 1103.12–13 (ii ad) n Peiraie± . . . pr¼ toÓ de©gmato. It is defined by S
uet. Ar. Eq. 979a as t»po . . . n Peiraie±, nqa polloª ungonto xnoi kaª
pol±tai kaª logopo©oun (= Suda D 300) . . . ke± o¬ mporoi t de©gmata
tän pwloumnwn t©qean; cf. Harp. p. 85.5–9 Dindorf (D 9 Keaney) = EM
259.52–3 t»po ti n täi ìAqnhin mpor©wi (∼ Tim. Lex. s.u.), e« Án t
de©gmata kom©zeto, AB 237.20–2 t»po ti n täi Peiraie± ìAqnai oÌtw
kaloÅmeno nqa de©knuto ±to kaª lla Àpria di de©gmato, Poll. 9.34
toÎnoma p¼ toÓ de©gmata tän gwg©mwn to± Ýnhtiäi d©doqai, par ì
ë Upere©dhi (fr. 186 Jensen). Elsewhere, of the bazaar at Rhodes (Plb. 5.88.8 n
täi tän ë Rod©wn de©gmati, D.S. 19.45.4) and Sarmatian Olbia (IPE i2 32b.49 =
SIG 3 495.146, c. 230 bc); more generally, Plu. 519a (gossips and busybodies
make for) t¼ de±gma kaª tn gorn kaª toÆ limna; figuratively, Ar. Eq.
979 n täi de©gmati tän dikän. See Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen 2.106–9,
Szanto, ‘De±gma’, RE iv.1 (1901) 2383–4, W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen
(Munich 2 1931) 448, C.Th. Panagos, Le Pirée (Athens 1968) 209–10, K.-V.
von Eickstedt, Beiträge zur Topographie des antiken Piräus (Athens 1991) 64–5,
432
X X I I I : T H E B OA S T F U L M A N
R. Garland, The Piraeus from the Fifth to the First Century BC (London 2 2001) 154,
219.
The conjecture de©gmati for diazeÅgmati (V) is one of Casaubon’s most
brilliant. But it has been out of favour ever since the discovery of the word
dizeugma in P. Lond. 131.205 (i ad), ‘perh. bridge over or branch of a canal’ (LSJ),
modified to ‘some sort of a connecting structure . . ., bridge, mole or sim.’ by LSJ
Rev.Suppl., which adds our passage and suggests for it ‘the Mole at the Piraeus’,
apparently identifying this with a structure at the Piraeus called t¼ cäma
(D. 50.6) or cäma (D. 51.4), to which ships were moored. This identification,
first proposed by Münsterberg (1895), was endorsed by Wachsmuth, ‘Choma’,
RE iii.2 (1899) 2369, ‘Diazeugma’, RE v.1 (1903) 355. The hypothesis to D. 51
actually describes the cäma as a building, used not only for mooring but also
as a market (o«kod»mhmì n täi limni probeblhmnon proorm©ew neka
kaª gor tän nautän). If the writer has not confused cäma with de±gma,
and there really was a pier or jetty with shops, there is no evidence that this
structure was called t¼ dizeugma. Others give dizeugma a separate identity:
e.g. Judeich 445 (‘Damm’), J. Travlos, Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Attika
(Tübingen 1988) 343 (‘Verbindungsdamm’), Eickstedt (‘Löschkai’), Garland
218 (‘pier’). There are in fact two further instances of the word, which have been
overlooked: S uet. Ar. Eq. 84b (ii) t pª htoÓ kaª ìAbÅdou diazeÅgmata
(Xerxes’ bridge) and Eust. Il. 864.3 (3.257.18 van der Valk) (anatomical, a
mistake for dizwma, as van der Valk observes). While there is no evidence for
anything called t¼ dizeugma at the Piraeus, there is plentiful evidence for t¼
de±gma, a natural meeting-place for foreigners, merchants, ship-owners, and
gossips. For thkÛ (of standing in a shop), IX.4, XI.4.
dihge±qai xnoi Þ poll crmata aËtäi tin n t¦i qaltthi: he pre-
tends that his money is in maritime loans (Millett, Lending and Borrowing 188–96,
E. E. Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective (Princeton 1992)
136–83). <to±> xnoi (Diels) is misconceived; he is talking to individuals, not
to a class (V.4n.). For the construction, Th. 1.74.1 n ta± nauª tän ëEllnwn
t prgmata gneto (LSJ n a.i.6). qaltthi not -- (V); XIV.12n.
kaª perª t¦ rga©a t¦ daneitik¦ diexinai ¡l©kh: he describes first
how extensive is maritime lending in general, then the extent of his own involve-
ment (aÉt¼ ktl.). To refer t¦ rga©a t¦ d- to ‘his money-lending business’
(Jebb, Rusten) deprives aÉt» of point. The adj. daneitik» appears first here,
next D.H. 6.81.3 and in documentary papyri (Korver, Crediet-Wezen 112–13); its
use in comedy may be inferred from Pl. Mos. 658 danisticum. To delete t¦ d-
(Ast before Herwerden) is perverse.
kaª aÉt¼ Âa elhje kaª polÛleke: for elhje, IX.4n.; polÛleke,
XV.7n. Much stood to be gained and lost in maritime lending. Loans were
large, because they paid for the cargo. Interest was high, because the risks were
high: if the ship and cargo were lost through wreck or piracy, the borrower
433
COMMENTARY
was freed from the obligation to repay the loan and interest. See Millett loc.
cit., Cohen esp. 160–5. For the sentiment, Shakespeare, Much Ado about Nothing
IV.ii fin. (Dogberry) ‘I am . . . a rich fellow enough . . . and a fellow that hath
had losses.’
kaª ma taÓta pleqr©zwn: if right, ‘extending this to the length of a
plqron’, i.e. ‘exaggerating’ (LSJ Rev.Suppl.). But plqron is not used in this
figurative way. Nothing is learned from kpleqr©zein in Gal. 6.133.18 Kühn (see
Rev.Suppl.) or from Hsch. P 2506 (= Phot. 2.92 Naber) plqrima· dr»mhma.
There are many conjectures, none plausible: plat©zwn or platug©zwn (also
C. C. Charitonides, EEPT 1 (1927) 73) or pleithr©zwn Coray, lgwn pleqr©-
zon ti Ast, megar©zwn Foss 1835, (toiaÓta) poll (or ple©w) çac©zwn Hanow
1861, megal©zwn Herwerden, pleonzwn Ribbeck 1882 (before Naber), pem-
pzwn Diels, jenak©zwn Meiser, poqr©zwn E. Maass (RhM 74 (1925) 461).
pmpein t¼ paidrion e« tn trpezan: for paidrion, XXII.10n. pª tn
trpezan (Foss 1858) brings the expression into line with D. 49.8, 43 (pmpein),
47.51, 52, 62 (kolouqe±n), 52.5 (rceqai), Men. fr. 804.7 (jrein); but T. has
e« with pmpein at XXII.6, XXX.14. For bankers’ tables, V.7n. For banks in
the Piraeus, D. 49.6, 52.8, Bogaert, Banques et banquiers 375, Millett, Lending and
Borrowing 211, Cohen 144–5, Garland (above on n täi de©gmati) 68. Polyaen.
6.2.2 (above) locates them in the de±gma itself.
<mhd mi> dracm¦ aÉtäi keimnh: a single drachma is a regular token
of penury, economy, or the like, usually in negative expressions: D. 21.66 t© . . .
kÜn n m©an dracmn qeleien naläai;, 89 dracmn . . . oÉdpw m©an
ktteiken, 23.209 oÉd mii (Weil: oÉdemii codd.) dracm¦i ple©w t Ëpr-
cont ì gneto, 37.31 t© n . . . oª dracmn dwke m©an;, Plu. 1043e (Chrysipp.
SVF 3 fr. 153) lgei t¼n oj»n, e« tn meg©thn oÉ©an pobloi, dracmn m©an
kbeblhknai d»xein, Ph. De Ios. 258 (4.116 Cohn-Wendland) oÉdem©an (oÉd
m©an pars codd., rightly) dracmn nojimeno, Plu. Aem. 4.4 oÉd dracm¦i
mii gegonÜ eÉporÛtero, Luc. 29.10 dracmn m©an . . . m labÛn, Lys.
2.6 autäi . . . mhdem©an (read mhd m©an) dracmn Ëpoleip»menon, Per. 15.3
mii dracm¦i me©zona tn oÉ©an oÉk po©hen, 1058c m©an okoqen dracmn
oÉk conto, D.Chr. 4.10 oÉdem©an dracmn kekthmno (read oÉd m©an, and
make the same change in 6.19, 31.9, 77/78.33, 79.6). Idiom calls for more than
<mhd> (Foss 1858) or <oÉd> (Ribbeck 1882); not <oÉdemi> (Steinmetz,
who prefers <mi>), but <mhd mi> (cf. §4 mhd ì Ëj ì n»). The correct
negative is mhd, since the part. is concessive (cf. I.5, IX.5, X.12, XII.14), not
merely circumstantial or temporal (contrast §8, VIII.3, XVII.2). See also on §3
oÉdamo±. Without a negative, the logical relationship of the participial clause
to the leading verb is undefined (he sends his slave to the bank, ‘there being a
drachma on deposit for him’), so that his motive for sending the slave is unclear.
One may invent a motive – to inquire how his account stands (Millett, Lending
434
and Borrowing 211), to withdraw his single drachma (Rusten) – but the expression
remains flat and the picture unfocused. If he has not even a single drachma in
his account, there is clarity and point: his claim to be heavily involved in mari-
time finance is exposed as a sham. For keimnh, LSJ ke±mai iii, t©qhmi a.ii.7.
3 The ìAlazÛn as soldier, a role he plays in comedy (Introd. Note), boasting

here not of martial exploits but of intimacy with the commander-in-chief
(cf. Antiph. 200 (Konstantakos 216–31), Damox. 1, Phoenicid. 4.7–8, PCG
adesp. 934, Ter. Eu. 397–409) and of the valuable objets which he has brought
back from abroad (cf. Men. Asp. 34–6, perhaps fr. 26, Damox. 1, Hipparch.
Com. 1).
kaª unodoip»rou d polaÓai n t¦i ¾däi dein»: he ‘enjoys’ the fellow
traveller, ‘takes advantage’ of him, perhaps implying both that he takes advan-
tage of the opportunity afforded by his company and that he enjoys pulling the
wool over his eyes. LSJ creates a separate meaning (iii ‘make sport of’) for this
passage and Lys. 6.38 ¡män polaÓai. This does not fit the latter (the mean-
ing is simply ‘use us to his advantage’), and here it is no more than implied.
The implication is stronger in Plu. Pomp. 24.13 oÌtw kateirwneumenoi kaª
polaÅante toÓ nqrÛpou (pirates paying mock respect to a captured
Roman), and 587f ¬kanä . . . polaÅa mou (wife enjoying her husband’s
discomfiture).
lgwn Þ met ì ìAlexndrou trateÅato: Introduction, pp. 27–9.
kaª <o«ke©>w aÉtäi e²ce: Cobet’s conjecture (1857, 1874) hits exactly the
right note (cf. Ter. Eu. 397ff.) and restores a regular expression (Isoc. 4.135,
5.80, 106, Ep. 7.10, Is. 1.18, D. 4.4, 8, 10.52, 23.119, 195, 31.10, 33.18, 34.21,
52.15, 23, 59.12, Prooem. 5.1, [Arist.] Ath. 36.1, D.S. 20.20.4). Þ aÉtäi e²ce
(V) is acceptable as syntax (X. Mem. 1.2.38 Þ e²con pr¼ lllou, Cyr.
7.5.58 nnoän . . . Âti . . . oÌtw coi aÉtäi (sc. ¡ p»li), D. 2.17 pä coui
Fil©ppwi, 3.8 c»ntwn . . . Þ coui Qhba©wn ¡m±n, Men. Per. 7 oÌt]w pr¼
lllou comen;), and Âpw (Cichorius) is not needed (see LSJ Þ a.c). But
it is not acceptable as sense. ‘How he was disposed to him’ calls for Alexander
as subject (how Alexander was disposed to the ìAlazÛn is a suitable theme
for boasting, but how the ìAlazÛn was disposed to Alexander is not), and
Alexander cannot be subject in a sequence where the ìAlazÛn is subject of
the preceding and following verbs. <jilikä> (Schneider), ‘he was friendly’,
also calls for Alexander as subject, and fails for the same reason.
kaª Âa liqok»llhta potria kom©ato: jewelled cups and the like are
commonly associated with Persia, e.g. (all from the 4th cent.) Theopomp.
FGrH 115 f 263a, Ath. 48f, 782a (3.18 Kaibel); M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and
Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941) 165, Lane Fox 145. Precious
stones from Bactria were used e« t liqok»llhta (Lap. 35). ‘Jewelled’ implies
435
COMMENTARY
excess (Men. fr. 275.1, an avaricious girl complains cruoÓn p»ria · eqe
liqok»llhton §n) and invites disapproval (Plu. Phoc. 19.4). Cups are regular
spoils of war: X. An. 4.3.25, 4.4.21, HG 4.1.24, Men. Asp. 35, 83, perhaps fr.
26, Hipparch. 1. Sense requires ‘carried off’, ‘got’, hence middle kom©ato
(Reiske 1749 (Briefe 361), 1757), as IV.13, XXX.15, 20, not k»mie (V), which
in this sense is confined to Homer, lyric, and tragedy (LSJ ii.2) and would here
mean ‘carried’, ‘conveyed’, as XXV.8.
kaª perª tän tecnitän . . . mjibht¦ai: he is a judge of fine craftsman-
ship, a connoisseur (like the soldier in Damox. 1, whose cup is *lkwno rgon);
a neat addition, to show that there is more to him than self-aggrandisement.
For mjibht¦ai ‘maintain’, in arguing on a disputed point, LSJ i.5.
kaª taÓta j¦ai: j¦ai is likelier than d j¦ai (also Coray) as a correction
of yhj¦ai (V), and explicable as a near dittography. For taÓta (alone) with
a verb of speech, II.10, XXI.11 ; for d, XX.3n. yoj¦ai (Hottinger), of an
articulate utterance, with a personal subject, would be abnormal, and Men. fr.
743 lazone©ai kaª y»joi does not license it. jlhnaj¦ai (Foss 1835) ‘babble
nonsense’ strikes the wrong note.
oÉdamo± k t¦ p»lew podedhmhkÛ: when the verb means ‘go abroad’
(LSJ 2), not ‘be abroad’ (LSJ 1), it may be accompanied by a prepositional
phrase or adverb indicating direction (e.g., for the latter, Ar. Ra. 48 po±, Pl. R.
579b oÉdam»e, Lg. 950a lloe, Phd. 61 e, D. 38.13 ke±e). Here ‘go abroad’ is
the natural sense, and it is reasonable to replace oÉdamoÓ (V) with -o± (Cobet
1874). Cf. Is. 4.27 podedhmkain oÉdamo± (Bekker: -¦ A), 9.14 pantaco±
(Reiske: -¦ A), X. Smp. 4.30 oÉdamo± (Dindorf: -oÓ codd.); and perhaps Pl. Lg.
950d mhdamo± (-¦i codd.) mhdamä. The form in -o± is attested by Hdn.Gr.
1.502 and survives (with u.l. -oÓ) in some mss. of X. Lac. 3.4 (-¦ M; -ä Stob.),
D. 23.166, 52.21, and is conjectured (for -oÓ) in S. Ph. 256, Ar. V. 1188, X. HG
5.2.8, An. 6.3.16, D. Ep. 2.17. See also XI.6n. We do not want oÉdam»e or -¦i
(Foss 1835). Since the part. is concessive, perhaps mhdamo± (see on §2 <mhd
mi>).
4 kaª grmmata d e«pe±n Þ preti par ì ìAntiptrou tritt d lgonta

paragenqai aËt¼n e« Makedon©an: for the historical background see the
Introduction, pp. 27–9. For the career of Antipater, H. Berve, Das Alexander-
reich auf prosopographischer Grundlage ii (Munich 1926) 46–51, W. Heckel, The
Marshals of Alexander’s Empire (London and New York 1992) 38–49, E. J. Bayn-
ham, ‘Antipater: Manager of Kings’, in I. Worthington (ed.), Ventures into Greek
History (Oxford 1994) 331 –56.
lgein ‘say’ is regular with grmmata (Hdt. 1.124.1, al., Philyll. 10, X. HG
1.1.23, D. 9.42, Men. Epit. 390, Sic. 136–7). Here ‘tell, command’ (LSJ iii.5).
How the two senses may overlap is shown by X. HG 5.1.32 ãper t bailw
grmmata legen (the message was an order). For d, XX.3n. We do not want
436
keleÅonta (Kayser) for d lgonta. Aorist paragenqai, of a once and for

all arrival, is preferable to present -g©neqai (V); cf. XIV.7.
kaª didomnh aËtäi xagwg¦ xÅlwn teloÓ Âti prnhtai: Mace-
donian timber was ranked above all others by carpenters (HP 5.2.1), and
Athens needed a constant supply for shipbuilding (Th. 4.108.1, X. HG 6.1.11,
D. 17.28); N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia 1 (Oxford 1972) 207–9,
(with G. T. Griffith) ii (Oxford 1979) 68–9, al., R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the
Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford 1982) 126–33. Present didomnh is better
suited than dedomnh (Hanow 1860) to an offer which has not been accepted.
e«agwg¦ (Blaydes) is wrong, since Antipater is granting freedom from
Macedonian export duty, not from Athenian import duty. For a similar conces-
sion, And. 2.11 Ànto moi ìArcelou xnou patrikoÓ kaª did»nto tmneqa©
te kaª xgeqai ¾p»ou (sc. kwpa) boul»mhn (Hammond and Griffith
138–9); for the language, D. 34.36 krugma . . . poihamnou Pairidou n
Bop»rwi, n ti boÅlhtai ìAqnaze . . . ithge±n, tel¦ t¼n ±ton
xgein.
prnhtai ‘he has refused’, absolute, as S. Ph. 527 (LSJ Rev.Suppl. ii.b.2),
Alex. 48.3; perfect, as D. 28.24 ¢rnhtai. So Cobet 1874 for pe©rhtai
(V), which is acceptable in sense (cf. Hdt. 9.7a.2 peipmeqa, absolute, ‘we
refused’), but doubtful in form. The middle verb is attested only in the first
aorist (XII.10n. pe©paqai), e«r¦qai is not used as a middle, and pe©rhtai is
regularly impersonal passive, ‘it has been forbidden’ (e.g. Pl. R. 396b, Aeschin.
3.48, 204, Xenarch. 7.7). parithtai (Kayser) is also possible.
Âpw mhd ì Ëj ì n¼ ukojanthq¦i: Introduction, pp. 27–9. The charge
anticipated is the importation of goods from an enemy state (MacDowell,
Law 158), and perhaps the associated charge of fraternisation with an enemy.
ukojnth (XXVI.4) is a term of abuse for one who brings a malicious
charge for a discreditable reason: MacDowell, Law 62–6, R. Osborne in P.
Cartledge, P. Millett, S. Todd (edd.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and
Society (Cambridge 1990) 83–102, D. Harvey ibid. 103–21, M. R. Christ, CQ
42 (1992) 336–46 (esp. 338), id. The Litigious Athenian (Baltimore and London
1998) esp. chs. 2–3, Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law 92–4, Arnott on Alex. 187,
N. Dunbar, Aristophanes, Birds (Oxford 1995) 673–4, Kapparis on [D.] (Apollod.)
59.43, Whitehead on Hyp. Lyc. 2.
mhd ì Ëj ì n» is regular word order (LSJ mhde© i.2, oÉd b), and to be
distinguished from Ëp¼ mhden» (KG 1.538 Anmerk. 5, R. Renehan, CPh 93
(1998) 164).
†
peraitrw jilooje±n pro¦ke Maked»i† : usually taken to mean ‘Mace-
donians should have been cleverer’, sc. than to make such a compromising
offer. But peraitrw jilooje±n means ‘philosophise further’, not ‘be clev-
erer’. Nothing is gained by writing Maked»nwn (Schneider), since ‘I had to
philosophise further than Macedonians’ is no way to say that one had to be
437
COMMENTARY
cleverer than they. There is more at fault than ineptness of language. The
words, whether taken as direct speech or not, have no syntactical connection
with what precedes. <kaª Âti> peraitrw (Foss 1835), <kaª> p- (Petersen)
and <gr> prokein (Foss 1835, before Hartung) restore connection; but,
the sense being uncertain, we cannot tell whether this is the kind of connec-
tion required. peraitrw Þ j©lo àn ple±n £ prokei Maked»i (Ussing)
aims for an appropriate sense (a charge of over-friendliness with Macedo-
nians), but requires peraitrw to be taken with ukojanthq¦i, inappropri-
ately. peraitrw j©lo e²nai ¢ (Madvig 1868, Ribbeck 1870) appropriately
brings peraitrw and £ pro¦ke together (peraitrw . . . ¢ E. fr. 928, Paus.
4.27.10; peraitrw toÓ prokonto Gal. 6.128 Kühn, al., peraitrw toÓ
donto Pl. Grg. 484c); but the construction ukojanthq¦i . . . e²nai is unat-
tested and the expression peraitrw j©lo e²nai unconvincing. Since Stein-
metz and Rusten print to± Maked»i as if it were the transmitted reading,
and Ussher claims that the article is needed, see e.g. Th. 1.57.2, 1.61.4, 2.80.7,
4.124.1, al., X. HG 5.2.12, D. 2.17, 19. 260, Aeschin. 2.138, and KG 1.598–9.
5 kaª n t¦i itode©ai d <e«pe±n> Þ: Introduction, p. 27. Serious shortages of

grain are attested in 330/29, 328/7, 323/2, and there may have been others
within the decade 330–320 (P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-
Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge 1988) 154–64; cf. S. Isager
and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century BC (Odense 1975)
200–8, J.McK. Camp, Hesperia Suppl. 20 (1982) 14–15). The shortage in 328/7
appears to have been particularly acute. It prompted pid»ei (XXII.3n.)
of a kind hitherto unattested, financial contributions towards the purchase
of grain: D. 34.39 e« tn itwn©an tn Ëpr toÓ dmou tlanton Ëm±n
pedÛkamen, IG ii2 360 (= SIG3 304) 11 –12 Âte a¬ pid»ei §an pdwke CCC
dracm e« itwn©an (cf. 70–1). The contributions listed in IG ii2 1628–9, and
that of Demosthenes ([Plu.] 851 b e« tn itwn©an pdwken n t¦i itode©ai
tlanton), may belong to the same year (A. Kuenzi, EPIDOI (Bern 1923)
29 n. 3, Garnsey 155–6; contra L. Migeotte, Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités
grecques (Geneva 1992) 20–1). The crisis of 328/7, if it was made particularly
memorable by the levying (perhaps for the first and only time) of contributions
from individuals, may be the occasion which we are to imagine here. But this is
no conventional p©doi. That (presumably) would have entailed the payment
of a lump sum to the grain commissioners. The ìAlazÛn claims (or, at any
rate, implies) that he gave a plurality of gifts to those in need, whom he could
not refuse, a personal touch, on which he prides himself.110
110 Contrast P. Veyne, Bread and Circuses (London 1990) 73 (= Le pain et le cirque (Paris
1976) 189): ‘No doubt he had put his name down for the sum in question on a list of
voluntary subscriptions (epidosis)’. This loses the personal touch. In his paraphrase,
438
I add <e«pe±n>, because (i) we have moved to a new topic, and a new verb
of speech is expected; (ii) if e«pe±n in §4 is taken as governing this clause, kaª . . .
d will be anomalous: this combination elsewhere connects only clauses which
have an infin. of their own and are part of the main infin. structure (I.2n.);
here, if no infin. is added, the clause which they connect will be subordinate.
ple©w £ pnte tlanta aËtäi gneto t nalÛmata did»nti to±
p»roi tän politän: gneto (Hanow 1860, before Navarre 1918) must
replace opt. gnoito (V), impossible in primary sequence (aor. infin. e«pe±n
is primary, not historic); XVIII.5n., XIX.9n. <n> gnoito (Hanow 1861,
before Navarre 1918, 1931 ) is unsuitable. For the sense of gneto (‘amounted
to’), XIV.2n. There is no call for ple±on (Eberhard 1865 before Wendland)
or plon (Wendland) (cf. e.g. D. 3.24 ple©w . . . £ mÅria tlanta, Hyp.
Dem. 25 ple©w £ xkonta tlanta), or pentetlanta (Navarre 1920), or
-mata <meta>did»nti (Cobet 1874). For the construction to± p»roi tän
politän see on V.7 tän . . . gumna©wn n toÅtoi.
6 In the first part of this section he describes rano-loans. Such loans are made
to friends and are repayable (I.5n.). They are different from the donations
described in §5. These were made to needy citizens and were presumably
not repayable. He is not, as commonly supposed (even by Millett, ‘Patronage’
42, Lending and Borrowing 40, 157, Garnsey (§5n.) 163), doing a more precise
calculation of the sums mentioned in §5 and finding that five talents were an
underestimate. The two sums, and their recipients, are unrelated. And he has
a new audience: in §5 he addressed unspecified hearers; in §6 he addresses
strangers sitting next to him.
kaª gnÛtwn d parakaqhmnwn: III.2n.
keleÓai qe±nai t yjou na aÉtän: for the abacus, XIV.2n.; the verb,
XXIV.12 t yjou diaqe±nai (diwqe±n V), D. 18.229 tiqeª yjou, calculum
(-os) ponere (OLD ‘calculus’ 3.b).
kaª poän kat cil©a kaª kat m©an: poän is a technical term, ‘cal-
culating p»on, quantifying’, first here and SIG3 279.41 (Zeleia c. 334/3 bc)
tän pow. q. [eiwn dracmwn. Cf. XVIII.9n. ‘By thousands’ and ‘by ones’
reflects the descending order of columns on the abacus (1,000, 500, 100, 50,
5, 1). ‘By 600s’ (kaq ì xako©a V) does not suit the abacus, which has no such
column. Wilamowitz 1898 diagnosed confusion between two different uses
of the symbol C, which represents 600 in the alphabetic system of numera-
tion, but 1,000 in the earlier acrophonic system. For these two systems, M. N.
Tod, Ancient Greek Numerical Systems (Chicago 1979), conveniently summarised by
S. Dow in H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge Mass. 2 1956) §348a, and
Veyne actually misplaces the self-satisfied ‘he could not say no’, so that it comes after
the mention of ranoi. But he is right (perhaps uniquely) in associating these gifts
with p©doi rather than with ranoi. See §6n. init.
439
COMMENTARY
by A. G. Woodhead, The Study of Greek Inscriptions (Cambridge 2 1981) 108–12.

Rusten prefers cilida to cil©a, adducing P. Keyser, ‘Errors of calculation in
Herodotus’, CJ 81 (1986) 230–42, who observes that Herodotus uses the collec-
tive noun cili (and muri, katont etc.) for large calculations, probably
done on the abacus, and suggests that these nouns may have been used to des-
ignate the columns of the abacus (231 –2). But kat cilida is not naturally
partnered by kat m©an. Its natural partner is kaq ì nda or kat monda.
With kat m©an we must supply dracmn, which is natural enough if cil©a
has preceded, since c©liai sc. dracma© is a regular ellipse (LSJ c©lioi 3), reflect-
ing the inscriptional use of acrophonic C, which represents not only 1,000 but
also, in monetary contexts, 1,000 drachmas. For the phrase as a whole cf. Hdt.
4.113.1 (Amazons) kat m©an te kaª dÅo (‘in ones and twos’); LSJ kat b.ii.3.
The use of a high figure (1,000) and the lowest (1) may be taken to imply the
use of the full range of columns and the punctiliousness of the count. kat
cil©a kaª kat¼n <kaª> m©an (Diels) is fussy, and an uneconomical change;
mnn (C. Salmasius, De Usuris Liber (Leiden 1638) 63) introduces muddle, by
combining a numerical count with a specific sum of money.
kaª protiqeª piqanä ktoi toÅtwn ½n»mata: the names are his imag-
inary beneficiaries (cf. Mart. 4.37); ktoi toÅtwn (neuter) are the individual
totals. piqanä, as VIII.9; but piqan (cd), being neater, may be right. See
also VIII.4n. init.
poi¦ai kaª dka tlanta: ‘make a total of’ (a sense not recognised by LSJ),
as D. 27.37 poiw trikonta mn; cf. kejlaion poi¦ai XIV.2, XXIV.12,
OLD ‘facio’ 9. ka© draws attention to the numeral, ‘as much as ten’ (Denniston
320); no need for [kaª] dka (Auberius before Casaubon), kka©deka (Petersen),
Þ dka (Naber before Edmonds 1910), kdé i.e. 24 (Cichorius).
kaª taÓta j¦ai e«enhncqai e« rnou aËtäi: the normal expression
ranon e«jrein (XV.7n.) is here varied to e« ran»n ti e«jrein, ‘contribute
x towards an rano’. taÓta must replace toÓto (V), since the singular can-
not refer to the plurality of sums just mentioned. Not taÉt» (Münsterberg
1894), ‘the same amount’, i.e. ten talents, which entails that the ten talents
just mentioned are not ranoi but (unacceptably) a revised calculation for the
earlier five. Alternatively, restore the normal expression with toÅto<u> . . .
[e«] rnou (e« is interpolated in §7). For dat. of agent with perf. passive,
KG 1.422, Schwyzer 2.150. There is no merit in replacing e«enhncqai with
e«enhnocnai (cd), in order to justify aÉtän (V).
kaª t trihrarc©a e«pe±n Âti oÉ t©qhin oÉd t leitourg©a Âa
leleitoÅrghke: and that is without his counting (LSJ t©qhmi a.ii.9.b ‘place
to account, reckon’ (add Eup. 163, 164, 165, Eub. 119.1, Men. Epit. 749),
XXX.18n. Ëpoqe±nai) the trierarchies (XXII.5n.) and all his other liturgies. To
boast of liturgies is a common tactic of the orators: A. R. Hands, Charities and
Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London 1968) 40–1, J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied
440
Families 600–300 BC (Oxford 1971) xvii–xviii, id. Wealth and the Power of Wealth
in Classical Athens (New York 1981) 92–7, Dover, Greek Popular Morality 292–5,
M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (London 2 1985) 150–2, J. Ober, Mass and Elite
in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People (Princeton 1989)
226–47, M. R. Christ, TAPhA 120 (1990) 150, 155, id. The Litigious Athenian
41 –2, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 26, 157, id. ‘The rhetoric of reciprocity
in classical Athens’, in C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, R. Seaford (edd.), Reciprocity
in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1998) 227–53, P. Wilson in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy
and the Historian (Oxford 1997) 89–96, id. Khoregia 172–84, S. Johnstone, Disputes
and Democracy: The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens (Austin 1999) 93–108.
In comedy too: Men. Sam. 13–14 täi corhge±n dijeron | [kaª t¦i] jilotim©ai.
Such boasting is characterised as lazone©a by D. 21.169 e« . . . per jei
kaª katalazoneÅetai pr¼ Ëm . . . toiaÓt ì §n aÉtäi t leleitourghmna,
36.41 lazoneÅetai kaª trihrarc©a re± kaª corhg©a, Aeschin. 3.101 t¼n
k»mpon kaª t trirei kaª tn lazone©an. Contrast XXVI.5n. But the
ìAlazÛn does not boast crudely of his liturgies. He smugly appends them to
his voluntary loans. His plurals insinuate that the liturgies were a heavy charge;
but he could still afford ten talents for his friends. A man who spends on this
scale (at least fifteen talents, not including liturgies) will be among the very
wealthiest in Athens. For costs of liturgies and levels of wealth, Davies, Athe-
nian Propertied Families xx–xxiv, Wealth esp. chs. ii–iii, L. Casson, ‘The Athenian
upper class and New Comedy’, TAPhA 106 (1976) 29–52, Rhodes on [Arist.]
Ath. 61.1 (pp. 679–82).
Since the trierarchy is a liturgy, t leitourg©a is (in effect) brachylogy
for ‘the <other> liturgies’, as XXVI.5, D. 20.151, 21.151 –2 (contrast Isoc.
8.20 tän e«jorän kaª tän trihrarciän kaª tän llwn tän perª t¼n
p»lemon leitourgiän, Is. 7.38, D. 28.3). The brachylogy highlights the tri-
erarchies, and implies that they are a thing apart, as indeed they are, since
they cost much more than other liturgies. So t <lla> (Casaubon) and
t <loip> (Coray) are not wanted. The spelling leit- is first attested by
inscriptions c. 375–350 bc; the older lhit- (Wilamowitz 1902b) is last attested
c. 330 (Threatte 1.371, 2.739; N. Lewis, GRBS 3 (1960) 175–84). Liturgies were
abolished by Demetrius of Phaleron between 317 and 307 bc (Introduction,
p. 33).
7 kaª proelqÜn d toÆ ¯ppou toÆ gaqoÆ to± pwloÓi

propoiaqai Ýnhtin: for this type of pretence cf. Mart. 9.59.
d ì e« toÆ (V) obliges us to interpret ‘he goes to the good-horse market
and pretends to the sellers that he wishes to buy’, which is anomalous on three
counts. (i) While e« toÆ ¯ppou may mean ‘to the horse-market’ (II.7n.),
an epithet of quality is foreign to this idiom. The epithet in Lys. 23.6 e« t¼n
clwr¼n tur»n is a standard one (Ar. Ra. 559, Cratin. 400, Antiph. 131.7,
441
COMMENTARY
Alex. 178.12; cf. Phryn. PS p. 127.7 de Borries, Poll. 6.48, Eust. Il. 1001.53
(3.689.18 van der Valk); Pellegrino 234) and expresses type (‘fresh cheese’),
not quality. To evade the anomaly by punctuating e« toÆ ¯ppou, toÆ
gaqoÆ ktl. (Pauw, Ussing) is absurd. (ii) e« with proelqe±n is abnormal.
In the few passages where this combination is alleged, pro- is probable: X.
An. 4.4.5 proelq»nte (u.l. pro-) e« pkoon, 7.8.5 proelqÜn (u.l. pro-) e«
ìOjrÅnion, HG 7.5.15 proi»nte (pro- Dindorf) e« tn Mant©neian, [Arist.]
Mir. 845 b 32 pro¦lqen ¾ Àji e« t¼n kÅklon. Cf. X. An. 7.2.1 (u.l. pro-),
Cyn. 9.2, Cyr. 6.2.11, HG 6.5.19 proelqÜn e« t¼ ped©on, 30 (u.l. pro-), Arist.
HA 619b 1, Mir. 841 b 19 (u.l. pro-). Foss 1858 proposed p© for e«. But the
normal preposition with proelqe±n, in all authors, is pr»: so IX.8, XXVI.4,
and, with the same idiom as is alleged here, XI.4 proelqÜn pr¼ t krua;
similarly, with other compounds in pro-, II.3, 10, V.7, XI.9, XXV.2. (iii)
propoiaqai with dat. (to± pwloÓi) is unexampled (Pl. Chrm. 155b, Isoc.
17.9 have the verb with pr» and acc.). To delete to± pwloÓi (Herwerden
before Cobet 1874) eliminates only the third anomaly. To delete e« eliminates
all three. proelqÛn now has a customary construction (dat. of person, as I.2,
XI.7, XII.2, XIII.8, XXIV.6), propoiaqai is relieved of an unaccustomed
dat., and toÆ ¯ppou toÆ gaqoÅ becomes the object of to± pwloÓi.
The order toÆ ¯ppou . . . to± pwloÓi, ‘the horse-sellers’, is the same as
XXVI.2 t¦ pomp¦ toÆ unepimelhomnou, Hdt. 7.184.4 t kamlou
toÆ laÅnonta ìArab©ou, X. Mem. 1.6.13 tn oj©an ÞaÅtw toÆ . . .
pwloÓnta (KG 1.616–17).
I credit d (for d ì e«) to Jebb, because he saw that this is the only change
needed, and he explained the construction correctly. Auberius had proposed
to± (for d ì e«) toÆ ¯ppou toÆ gaqoÆ [[to± om. cd]] pwloÓi, modified
to d to± toÆ ¯p- by Sylburg, to d to± ¯p- by Reiske 1757 (before Schneider),
the latter giving the same order as VI.4 to± t¼ Åmbolon jroui, XXIX.2
to± . . . dhmo©ou gäna Ýjlhk»i. For another interpolated preposition,
XXIV.4.
Applied to a horse, gaq» is not quite the same as eÉgen (‘thoroughbred’,
Thgn. 184, S. El. 25) but indicates general excellence and serviceability (Ar.
Pl. 157 ¾ mn ¯ppon gaq»n, ¾ d kÅna qhreutik (sc. a«te±), Pl. Phdr. 246a,
[Pl.] Virt. 378e, X. Eq.Mag. 8.14, Hier. 6.15, Plu. 642a, Arr. Cyn. 24.1), a ‘good-
quality horse’, such as will be needed for the cavalry and for racing (Wyse on
Is. 5.43). Not gwnikoÅ (Orelli) nor glaoÅ (H. Stadtmüller, LZB 54 (1903)
615). A choicer epithet, if one were needed, would be dhjgou (Phot. A
345 Theodoridis djagon· <o¬> gwnitaª ¯ppoi oÌtw kaloÓnto, Þ
ìAritojnh (fr. 758) kaª Ferekrth (fr. 212), IG ii2 2311 b 55 (400–350 bc)
¯ppwn zeÅgei dhjgwi; see Radt on S. fr. 976).
A horse of good quality would cost over 1,000 drachmas. Inscriptional evi-
dence for the valuation of cavalry horses in the fourth and third centuries
442
suggests that 1,200 drachmas was the conventional upper figure (K. Braun,
MDAI(A) 85 (1970) 198–269, esp. 267, J. H. Kroll, Hesperia 46 (1977) 83–140,
esp. 88–9, 99, G. R. Bugh, The Horsemen of Athens (Princeton 1988) 57–8, 158,
I. G. Spence, The Cavalry of Classical Greece (Oxford 1993) 274–9). Literary evi-
dence is sparse, but consistent with this: 50 darics, i.e. 1250 drachmas, X. An.
7.8.6 (so Kroll 89; not 1,000, as given by J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horse-
manship (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1961) 136); 1200 drachmas, Ar. Nu. 21, 1224,
and apparently Lys. 8.10; 300 dr. for a cheap horse, Is. 5.43. Horse owner-
ship is often adduced as a mark of wealth: Davies, Athenian Propertied Families
xxv–vi (in n. 7 add Men. Sam. 15), Pomeroy on X. Oec. 1.8, Spence 182–3,
191 –3.
Ýnhtin (a conjectural supplement in the lacuna at I.5) is attested earlier
only in Theopomp.Com. 46; later only in D.C. (to LSJ’s citation add 45.23.6,
47.14.5) and the lexicographers (Poll. 3.80, 3.126, 9.34 (cited §2 init.), Suda W
112, 113 = An.Bachm. 1.421.27, Hsch. W 239).
8 kaª pª t khn lqÜn ¬matim¼n zht¦ai e« dÅo tlanta: khna©
are ‘market stalls’, as D. 18.169 tän khnän tän kat tn gorn, Theoc.
15.16 p¼ kan gordein, and probably Ar. Pax 731 ; hence khn©th
‘stall-keeper’ Isoc. 17.33 (Harp. p. 275.16 Dindorf (S 24 Keaney) = Suda S
570 peid n khna± piprketo poll tän Ýn©wn), IG ii2 1672 (329/8
bc) 13–15, 171. They will have been either flimsy booths or (as in a modern
market) stalls partially enclosed by canvas: Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen 2.459–
60, Wycherley, ‘Market of Athens’ 15–16 (∼ Stones of Athens 98–9), Agora iii
190–2, Thompson and Wycherley, Agora xiv 170, Millett, ‘Encounters in the
Agora’ 216. kl©na (V) is indefensible: not ‘trestles’ to display items for sale
(Cichorius), an unexampled sense; nor ‘shops which sell kl±nai’ (the idiom
illustrated on II.7), since these are not the place to look for ¬matim». The
phonetic confusion of h and i (X.14n.) is at the root of the corruption. There is
no merit in kli©a (contemplated by Casaubon in the copy of his 1599 edition
in the British Library (see the Introduction, p. 54 n. 172); also Visconti ap.
Schweighäuser 1802, before Edmonds 1929).
The noun ¬matim» appears first here, next Callix. FGrH 627 f 2 (p. 167.9),
Plb. 6.15.4, al., D.S. 17.94.2, 20.93.4; also documentary papyri and inscriptions
(LSJ). It means ‘clothing’ (Suda I 340 ¬matim» · ¡ q), and there is no war-
rant for extending it to ‘uestis stragula’ (Schneider), ‘bedding’ and ‘draperies’
(Jebb), in the hope of justifying kl©na. A ¬mati»pwli gor is mentioned by
Poll. 7.78 (Wycherley, Agora iii no. 663). For the construction ¬matim¼n . . . e«
dÅo tlanta cf. Th. 8.29.1 trojn . . . dracmn ìAttikn (‘maintenance of
as much as a drachma’); LSJ e« a.iii.1. That three minae would buy a purple
robe in the time of Socrates (Plu. 470f) gives the measure of his extravagance
(two talents = 120 minae).
443
COMMENTARY
täi paidª mceqai Âti t¼ cru©on oÉk cwn aËtäi kolouqe±: cf. XIV.9
mceqai täi paidª Âti (mceqai VI.4n., Âti §9n.). For slaves carrying money,
XVIII.3n.; kolouqe±, IX.3n. Deletion of t¼ (Cobet 1874) is unnecessary
(IV.10n.).
9 kaª n miqwt¦i o«k©ai o«kän j¦ai taÅthn e²nai tn patrÛian pr¼ t¼n
m e«d»ta: rented accommodation suggests poverty. So X. Smp. 4.4 tkton
te kaª o«kod»mou . . . o° lloi mn pollo± poioÓin o«k©a, auto± d oÉ
dÅnantai poi¦ai ll ì n miqwta± (Portus: miqä aÉta± uel sim. codd.)111
o«koÓi, Posidon. fr. 253.50 Edelstein-Kidd ¾ d pr»teron k miqwt¦ o«k©a
xiÜn e« tn † dieu † o«k©an toÓ t»te ploutoÓnto nqrÛpou . . . e«hncqh.
See O. Schultheß, ‘M©qwi’, RE xv.2 (1932) 211 –14, R. Osborne, ‘Social
and economic implications of the leasing of land and property in Classical and
Hellenistic Greece’, Chiron 18 (1988) 279–323, esp. 307 n. 47 (rented houses),
318, Lane Fox 130. For resumptive taÅthn after participial clause, XIV.6n.
kaª Âti mllei pwle±n aÉtn: Âti is used in this work nearly 40 times to
introduce either indirect speech (as here) or (less commonly) direct speech
(II.8n.), and was restored by Lycius before Casaubon for di»ti (V), which is
found only twice (XVII.4 bis), in the sense ‘because’ (LSJ i), in which sense Âti
is used thrice (§8, II.3, XIV.9). The statement that di»ti sometimes replaces
Âti in the sense ‘that’ (LSJ ii; cf. Goodwin §710, Wyse on Is. 3.50) is misleading.
di»ti is not used after a verb of speech to introduce an indirect statement, but
may introduce an actual or virtual indirect question, or a substantival clause
(‘the fact that’); P. Monteil, La phrase relative en grec ancien (Paris 1963) 258–61,
A. Lillo, ‘Sur l’origine du di»ti complétif’, in B. Jacquinod (ed.), Les complétives
en grec ancien (Saint-Etienne 1999) 313–29. So CP 2.16.1 di»ti . . . janer»n (‘it is
clear that’), 6.11.5 rc¦i . . . t¦i pollki e«rhmnhi di»ti (‘the often mentioned
principle, namely that’). di»ti is sometimes so used by orators who avoid hiatus
(Wyse loc. cit.); and Diels (Index) notes that the three transmitted instances of
di»ti in this work all stand ‘post vocalem’. But T. does not avoid kaª Âti at
VII.2, 9, XX.9 bis, 10. di»ti will have arisen from unconscious reminiscence
or anticipation of nearby syllables in the sequence e«d»ta . . . <di>»ti . . . di
t». For the change of construction (after acc. and infin.) see on III.3 kaª tn
qlattan ktl.
di t¼ lttw e²nai aËtäi pr¼ t xenodok©a: for lttw cf. X.14.
aËtäi (aÉ- V) was restored by Edmonds 1908. The spelling -doc- (V, and
X. Oec. 9.10, the only other occurrence of the noun in classical Greek) was
corrected by Cobet 1854 and Nauck 1863.
111 A certain conjecture, in spite of Huß (1999) ad loc.
444
XXIV
T H E A R RO G A N T M A N
Introductory note
D. M. MacDowell on D. 21.83 illustrates the uses of Ëperhjan©a and Ëper-
jano by the orators and others. Ëperhjan©a is often associated with Ìbri.
But while Ìbri finds expression in physical action (‘aggressiveness’), Ëper-
hjan©a remains an attitude of mind (‘arrogance’). The Ëperjano feels
himself superior to others. He is liable to consider ordinary people kaqr-
mata kaª ptwcoª kaª oÉd ì nqrwpoi (D. 21.198). We find him bracketed
with the mi»dhmo and minqrwpo (Isoc. 15.131). The ë Uperjano of
Theophrastus thinks only of his own convenience, and treats others high-
handedly or ignores them. Ariston of Keos wrote a work Perª toÓ kouj©zein
Ëperhjan©a (Introduction, pp. 9–10). Etymology is uncertain (Chantraine
1158).
[1 ] Definition
The definition is comparable in structure (noun and dependent gen. with
prepositional phrase interposed) to def. I and XVII. katajr»nhi adequately
renders Ëperhjan©a (with gen., ‘contempt for’, Pl. R. 391c, D. 21.195). Aristotle
associates contempt with aÉqdeia (EE 1233 b 35–6). See the Introd. Note to
XV (the AÉqdh). He also associates it with the unworthy imitators of the
megal»yuco, who because of material good fortune are Ëper»ptai and
Ëbrita© (EN 1124 a 29) and contemptuous of others (1124 b 1 –2 o«»menoi tän
llwn Ëpercein ke©nwn . . . katajronoÓin, 4–5 katajronoÓi . . . tän
llwn), but, lacking ret, lack the justification which the megal»yuco has
for this contempt. For a possible link between this passage and the sketch
itself see on §3. Ariston, reflecting the same passage, opposes Ëperjano and
megal»yuco: fr. 13, vi (p. 35.25–7 Wehrli) tin toÓ mn megaloy[Å]cou
t¼ katajrone±n tän tuch[r]än Ëperconta täi t¦ yuc¦ Àgkwi, toÓ
d ì Ëperhjnou t¼ di kouj»thta taÅth kpneumatoÅmenon Ëp¼ ktew
Ëperorn trou (cf. fr. 13, v, p. 35.3 t¼ toÆ llou Ëperjr[o]ne±n). See
further Stein 246–7.
ï Eti d: def. XIV n.
ti: def. I n.
pln aËtoÓ tän llwn: LSJ pln b.i.
2 toi»de ti: def. XVII n.
445
COMMENTARY
täi peÅdonti p¼ de©pnou nteÅxeqai jkein n täi peripate±n: täi

peÅdonti is either ‘the man who is in a hurry’ (like XI.6 peÅdonta . . . poi)
or ‘the man who is eager (for a meeting)’ (see on I.4 to± ntugcnein kat
poudn boulomnoi). The dat. is constructed with both infinitives: ‘he says
to the man . . . that he will meet him’. He promises a meeting, but at his own
convenience, after dinner, when he has nothing better to do than take a stroll
(cf. XX.4). Changes like täi peÅdonti <ntugcnein aÉtäi> (Casaubon)
and täi peÅdonti ntugcnein “p¼ de©pnou” jkein “n täi peripate±n”
(Stein) are needless.
p¼ de©pnou is ‘after dinner’, because one rises ‘from’ it (LSJ p» a.ii init.):
H. Il. 8.54, Hdt. 1.133.2, al., Antipho 1.17 pr¼ de©pnou £ p¼ de©pnou, Ar.
V. 103 p¼ dorphtoÓ, Ec. 694 (cf. 626–7 pi»nta | p¼ toÓ de©pnou). An
after-dinner stroll is regular in warmer climates. Cf. Ar. V. 1401 p¼ de©pnou
bad©zonta (‘walking’, XVI.8n.; similarly Pax 839–40, Pherecr. 88), X. Smp. 9.1
xan©tato e« per©paton, D. 54.7 peripatoÓnto ãper e«Ûqein pra n
gori mou, Plu. Th. 35.7 met de±pnon ãper e«Ûqei peripatoÓnta, Luc.
JTr. 15.
3 kaª eÔ poia memn¦qai jkein: to tell another that one remembers the
favour one has done him (XX.9n. eÔ poia) is to remind him of the obligation
under which he stands. The ìAna©cunto reminds the butcher of past favours
(IX.4). This is bad form. As Demosthenes puts it, favours received should
be remembered, favours conferred forgotten, and a reminder is equivalent to
a reproach: 18.269 gÜ nom©zw t¼n mn eÔ paq»nta de±n memn¦qai pnta
t¼n cr»non, t¼n d poiant ì eÉqÆ pilel¦qai, e« de± t¼n mn crhtoÓ,
t¼n d m mikroyÅcou poie±n rgon nqrÛpou. t¼ d t «d©a eÉerge©a
Ëpomimnkein kaª lgein mikroÓ de±n Âmoi»n ti täi ½neid©zein. The senti-
ment and language find many echoes: Arist. Rh. 1374 b 16–18 (pieik ti)
t¼ mnhmoneÅein . . . gaqän æn paqe mllon £ <æn> po©hen (for D.’s
½neid©zein, 1381 b 2–3, 1384 a 3), Ter. An. 43–4 nam istaec commemoratio | quasi expro-
bratiost inmemori (Guyet: -is codd.) benefici, Cic. Amic. 71 odiosum sane genus hominum,
officia exprobrantium, quae meminisse debet is in quem collata sunt, non commemorare qui
contulit, Liv. 5.44.3 pro tantis populi Romani beneficiis quanta ipsi meministis (nec enim
exprobranda apud memores sunt) gratiae referendae, Sen. Ben. 1.2.3 numquam illa (sc.
beneficia) uir bonus cogitat nisi admonitus a reddente, 2.10.4 ego illi non sum indicaturus
me dedisse, cum inter prima praecepta ac maxime necessaria sit ne umquam exprobrem,
immo ne admoneam quidem. haec enim beneficii inter duos lex est: alter statim obliuisci
debet dati, alter accepti numquam. The megal»yuco of Aristotle is less idealistic.
He remembers and likes to be reminded of benefits which he has conferred
on others, but he forgets and does not like to be reminded of benefits which
others have conferred on him, for the recipient of a benefit is the inferior of
his benefactor: EN 1124 b 12–17 dokoÓi d kaª mnhmoneÅein oÕ (Bywater: oÍ
446
X X I V: T H E A R R O G A N T M A N
codd.) n poiwin eÔ, æn d ì n pqwin oÎ (lttwn gr ¾ paqÜn eÔ

toÓ poianto, boÅletai d ì Ëpercein), kaª t mn ¡dw koÅein (Bywater:
koÅei codd.), t d ì hdä. See also XXVI.4n.
He makes a vulgar and patronising show of his superiority by claiming that
he remembers, thereby reminding others of their inferiority. That is the way
jkein must be taken. Not ‘When he has done a good deed he remembers to
say so’ (Ussher); nor ‘If he does a favor, he says to remember it’ (Rusten, al.).
If jkein offends, repeated so soon after jkein in §3, it might be deleted
(Fischer, before Navarre 1918 and Pasquali); but note n ta± ¾do± §4 and §8,
untxai §10 and §12. Other changes are misguided: jrzein Ast (not a verb of
T.’s), <m> memn¦qai Foss 1834, memneqai Naber, memn¦qai, <eÔ paqÜn
d m> [jkein] Navarre 1918.
4 kaª bad©zwn n ta± ¾do± t dia©ta kr©nein [n] to± pitryai: cf. Ar.
Nu. 964 bad©zein n ta±in ¾do±, Pl. Chrm. 159b, Alex. 265.2, Plu. Cat.Mi. 5.6,
and XVI.8n. To conduct an arbitration (V.3n.) while walking in the street is a
fair illustration of arrogance. Even to talk while walking (ma lgwn bad©zein)
betrays qraÅth and groik©a (Arist. Rh. 1417 a 23). bad©zwn for bizein (V) is
certain (same corruption Men. Sic. 145 bad©zete] biazete P). With n deleted
(for another interpolated preposition, XXIII.7), t dia©ta may be taken
p¼ koinoÓ with both kr©nein (though the expression d- kr©nein is unexampled)
and to± pitryai (d- pitrpein is regular: Lys. 32.2, Isoc. 17.19, 18.10, 14,
Is. 5.31, D. 34.44, 40.43, 59.45, 68). None of the many other proposals has
any appeal: dikzein (with t dia©ta ktl. deleted) Darvaris, bizeqai . . .
<kaª> n<tucÜn> Foss 1834 (bizeqai . . . n<tucÛn> Rusten), kr©nein
<m ìqlein> (with bad©zwn n ta± ½do± deleted) or kaª jrzein bad©zwn . . .
<m> krine±n Meier 1842, jrzein . . . krine±n Foss 1858, podokimzein t¼ d-
kr- Hanow 1860, Ëptizein (for bizein) Ussing, m xioÓn (for bizein) Herw-
erden, bizeqai . . . toÆ diai<th>t Cichorius, biz<eqai dikz>ein
n ta± <un>»doi . . . koin<¼> e³ àn to± Giesecke, n <tcei>
Diels (pointless, after the pointed bad©zwn), nª (sc. l»gwi) Edmonds 1929,
n <oÉk> pitryai Latte ap. Steinmetz, kr©nein n ta± ¾do± Steinmetz
(Addenda).
5 kaª ceirotonoÅmeno x»mnuqai t rc, oÉ jkwn colzein: while

most public officers were appointed by lot, some others, such as ambassadors
and generals, were elected by show of hands in the Ecclesia (E. S. Staveley, Greek
and Roman Voting and Elections (London 1972) 83–8, M. H. Hansen, The Athenian
Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1987) 44–6, 120–3, id. Athenian Democracy
159–60, 233–5). He swears an oath declaring himself ineligible (x»mnuqai,
VI.8n.) every time he is elected (t rc, plural), alleging not a reasonable
excuse like ill health (D. 19.124) but the self-important plea that he is too busy.
447
COMMENTARY
6 kaª proelqe±n pr»tero oÉdenª qel¦ai: ‘approach’ (I.2n.), implying

‘greet’. Cf. D. 45.68 (he unsociably assumes a sullen air in the street, reasoning
that) to± mn plä, Þ pejÅkai, bad©zoui kaª jaidro± kaª prolqoi
ti n kaª dehqe©h kaª pagge©leien oÉdn ½knän, to± d peplamnoi kaª
kuqrwpo± ½knei ti n proelqe±n präton, Men. Dysc. 9–10 lellhken
¡dw n täi b©wi | oÉden<©> (cf. §8), prohg»reuke pr»tero d ì oÉdna,
Ach.Tat. 8.17.5 pemele±to jqnein proagoreÅwn toÆ ntugcnonta, V.2,
XV.3. The one who makes the first approach or greeting implicitly acknowl-
edges the superior status of the other, or, at any rate, strives to be polite.112
qel- (attested at I.2, XVI.9; cf. XV.10) not qel- (V) is the form expected in
prose (W. G. Rutherford, The New Phrynichus (London 1881) 415–16, Wyse on
Is. 8.11, Threatte 1.426, 2.637–8, Arnott on Alex. 115.26, id. ‘Orthographi-
cal variants’ 197–8, Olson and Sens on Archestr. 22.1 –2, Olson on Ar. Pax
939–41). Rather than mhden© for oÉden© (Darvaris), perhaps oÉdenª <n>
(VI.9n.).
7 kaª toÆ pwloÓnt ti £ miqoumnou dein¼ keleÓai ¤kein pr¼ aËt¼n

mì ¡mrai: people who wish to sell (X.7n.) or to hire something (not ‘offer
themselves for hire’, Edmonds). miqoumnou (Coray; I do not know whether
Diels is right to attribute it to Stroth) is preferable to memiqwmnou (V), which,
if taken as middle (‘people who have hired something’), is an unsuitable partner
for present pwloÓnta, if taken (more naturally) as passive (‘who have been
hired’), gives unsuitable sense (he has every right to instruct hired hands to
come at dawn). £ kaª miq- (Diels, after £ kaª mem- Ast) is an unconvincing
elaboration; miqoÓnta (Blaydes) is no improvement. For omission of the art.
with the second part. see on I.5 kaª pr¼ toÆ ktl. For the general idea, Hor.
S. 2.3.226–30 (tradesmen summoned at dawn).
8 kaª n ta± ¾do± poreu»meno m lale±n to± ntugcnoui: cf. Men. Dysc.
9 (cited §6), [Arist.] MM 1192 b 31 –2 (the aÉqdh) toioÓt» tin o³o mhqenª
ntuce±n mhd dialeg¦nai. For lale±n, Introd. Note to VII.
ktw kekujÛ: to avoid contact, as Pl. R. 555e gkÅyante oÉd dokoÓnte
toÅtou ¾rn, Amphis 30.6–9 kuyen . . . iwp¦i . . . Þeª † procwn
d ì † oÉdn oÉd ì khkoÜ ktl., Plu. 532e to± d duwpoumnoi, kn mhdn
epwin, xetin ½jrÓn prai m»non £ ktw kÅyai poll boultou
112 Who first greets whom is often prescribed by protocol. There is a nice illustration in
G. Psychoundakis (transl. Patrick Leigh Fermor), The Cretan Runner (Penguin ed. 1998,
130–1). A disguised British officer, sitting by the roadside, says good-day to a passing
Cretan woman, and thereby gives himself away. ‘She knew it’ (says his companion)
‘because, sitting down, we ought not to have wished her good-day before she did . . .
It doesn’t matter who speaks first if you are both walking, but otherwise, the one who
is on the move must greet first.’
448
kaª t»pou Ëpourg©a diajeÅgein. A bent head may indicate many other
attitudes: grief or dejection (Hdt. 3.14.3 kuye tn g¦n, Ar. fr. 410 Þ e« tn
g¦n kÅyaa ktw kaª xunnenoju±a bad©zei, D. 18.323 tnwn kaª kÅptwn
e« tn g¦n, Euphro 1.27 kupton . . . pobol¦i, Caes. B.G. 1.32.2 tristis
capite demisso terram intueri, Apul. Met. 3.2 quamquam capite in terram, immo ad ipsos
inferos, iam deiecto maestus incederem), shame (Ar. Eq. 1354–5), thought or preoc-
cupation (Ar. Nu. 191 with S uet., Epicr. 10.21 –2), obstinacy and hostility (the
image of a bull ready to butt, Ar. V. 279, Ra. 804, Ec. 863), brutishness (Pl. R.
586a bokhmtwn d©khn ktw eª blponte kaª kekuj»te e« g¦n), modesty
(Philem. 4.1 –2 oÉk n lal¦i ti mikr»n, tª k»mio, | oÉd ì n poreÅhta©
ti e« tn g¦n blpwn, [Luc.] Am. 44 = CAF adesp. 366 Kock). For this
verb in T., II.10n. It is used in satyric drama (E. Cycl. 212 nakekÅjamen), but
is not elevated enough for tragedy (hence S. Ant. 441 d, tn neÅouan
e« pdon kra ktl., where dejection and defiance alike are present). See also
Headlam on Herod. 7.79, Arnott on Alex. 16.6, Bremmer in J. Bremmer and
H. Roodenburg (edd.), A Cultural History of Gesture from Antiquity to the Present Day
(Cambridge 1991) 19, 22–3.
Âtan d aÉtäi d»xhi nw plin: aÉtäi rather than aËtäi (Needham);
I.2n. The verb kÅptein is readily understood with nw (implying nakÅptein,
as XI.3, XXV.2), and there is no need for nw blpwn or nw plin
<blpwn> (Kayser).
9 kaª tiän toÆ j©lou aÉt¼ m undeipne±n: cf. X.11, XXX.2, 16;
Demetr.Com.Nov. 1.8 tiänto toÆ j©lou.
ll tän Ëj ì aËt»n tini untxai aÉtän pimele±qai: for Ëj ì aËt»n, LSJ
Ëp» c.ii, KG 1.525–6; no need for aËtäi (Blaydes), as LSJ b.ii.2. untxai
(again §12) is ‘arrange’, ‘prescribe’, in an unusual construction with dat. and
infin. (LSJ ii.4), by analogy with protxai and pitxai (the latter proposed
here and §12 by Blaydes).
10 kaª proapotllein d, pn poreÅhtai, t¼n roÓnta Âti prorcetai:

cf. II.8 poreuomnou pr» tina tän j©lwn prodramÜn e«pe±n Âti “Pr¼
rcetai”. An expression indicating direction (analogous to pr» tina tän
j©lwn) might be expected. Since pn is irreproachable (V.10n.), pn <poi>
poreÅhtai (XI.6n.) might be preferred to j ì Án n p- (Bücheler). For t¼n
roÓnta, XVIII.2n. For the absolute use of prorcetai, XX.4. We do not
want “Pr¼ rcetai” (Darvaris), duplicating II.8.
11 kaª oÎte p ì leij»menon aËt¼n oÎte loÅmenon oÎte q©onta ai n

e«elqe±n: he insists on privacy for activities which are commonly performed
in the presence of others. If this is personal fastidiousness, it is (because uncon-
ventional) deemed to be offensively self-centred or standoffish. Inaccessibility,
449
COMMENTARY
when viewed (as it usually was) in political terms, was frowned on, as the mark
of an autocrat or one who does not care for popular approval: Hdt. 1.99, Th.
1.130.2, E. IA 343–5, Plu. Nic. 5.1 –2, Demetr. 42.1 ; cf. Sb E. Med. 216 polloª
gr, jh©, tän nqrÛpwn di t¼ kecwr©qai kaª m ¾mile±n tiin laz»ne
kaª Ëperjanoi doxan e²nai. Accessibility marks the democrat: E. IA 340–2,
X. Ages. 9.2, Plu. Cim. 10.1, Cic. Planc. 66. See A. Wallace-Hadrill, JRS 72 (1982)
33–5. e«elqe±n (X.12n.) indicates that he is at home. So he is not avoiding the
public baths, like Phocion (Plu. Phoc. 4.3), with whom contrast Suet. Tit. 8.2,
SHA Hadr. 17.5.
For oÎte . . . n ai (infin. restored by Needham not Casaubon, whose
ai is opt.), VI.9n. For the place of the prep. p© (in the first limb only), Diggle,
Studies on the Text of Euripides 23–4, and epil. VIII n. loÅmenon (Meineke before
Cobet 1874 and Diels), not lou»menon (V), is the correct Attic form: Phryn.
ecl. 159 Fischer (Lobeck, Phrynichus 188–9, Rutherford, The New Phrynichus
274–8), Phot. E 660, L 405 (Theodoridis on the latter), Veitch 423–5, KB
2.478, Schwyzer 1.682, LSJ loÅw. Cf. XXVIII.4.

logiz»meno pr» tina: ‘reckoning an account with someone’, either reck-
oning what he owes someone or (more likely) reckoning what someone owes
him. For the verb, XIV.2n.; for the preposition (with the verb in a different
sense), D. 5.24 pr¼ d toÆ . . . m proorwmnou t¼n p»lemon ke±na boÅlo-
mai log©aqai, and the regular log©zeqai pr¼ aut»n (KG 1.519, LSJ ii.2).
For the absence of a defining gen. with pr» tina, XXVIII.3n.
täi paidª untxai t yjou diaqe±nai: diaqe±nai (Sheppard before Foss
1858) for diwqe±n (V) is supported by Met. 6a 20 diatiqnta tin yjou, of
arranging pebbles in a pattern (van Raalte (Leiden etc. 1993) ad loc.). The
expression, here a variation on yjou qe±nai, ‘arrange the pebbles of the
abacus’ (XXIII.6n.), belongs under LSJ diat©qhmi a.1 (‘arrange each in their
several places, distribute’ ). No other conjecture need be contemplated: dioike±n
Pauw, di tcou qe±nai Darvaris, diaqe±n Ast, diaqqai Sheppard, dielqe±n
Bücheler, tiqnai Navarre 1931 .
diwqe±n admits no satisfactory explanation. This verb is much less common
in the active than the middle (LSJ ii ‘force one’s way through’, ‘push away’,
‘reject’). Theophrastus has middle at HP 8.11.8, of a seed which puts out roots
and ‘forces a way through’ undergrowth. For the active, LSJ i.2 cites two
examples of the sense ‘thrust through’. With these belong Vent. 29 kbizetai
kaª diwqe± mllon qr»on (of wind or water forcing a way through a narrow
channel; ‘concentrated, it has more thrust’, V. Coutant and V. L. Eichenlaub,
Theophrastus De Ventis (Notre Dame 1975) 29, rather loosely) and Sud. 15 (passive,
of secretions forced out from sores). I do not know what to make of Ign. 53 Ëj ì
aËtoÓ gr kine±tai t¼ pÓr kaª mllon kine± t¼n ra £ Ëp ì ke©nou kine±tai
450
täi diwqe±n (täi Ýqe±n Wimmer; u.l. t¼ Ýqe±n), as printed by Gercke (1896)
and (omitting kine±tai by oversight) V. Coutant, Theophrastus De Igne (Assen
1971), whose translation (‘ . . . from the impulse of the air’) will not do. Hsch. K
2574 actually has yjou diwqe±n, of pushing votes through the aperture of a
voting-urn. This leaves three passages cited by LSJ i.1, where the basic sense is
‘push aside’, ‘push apart’. Common to these is a strong sense of physical vio-
lence: H. Il. 21.243–4 (ptelh) k çizwn ripoÓa | krhmn¼n panta diäen
(the ash tree, pulled from its roots, ‘tore away’, ‘tore open’, the whole bank),
E. Hcld. 995–6 diÛa kaª katakte©na moÆ | cqroÅ (a blend of ‘thrust
aside’ and ‘force a way through’),113 Pl. Ti. 67e tän ½jqalmän t diex»-
dou b©ai diwqoÓan kaª tkouan (of a fiery ray, ‘violently pushing apart
the passage-ways of the eyes’, so as to force a way through; A. E. Taylor, A
Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (Oxford 1928) 482). In the light of these passages,
yjou diwqe±n will connote not some innocent and orderly procedure, like
moving the pebbles from column to column, nor even moving them with care-
less haste (‘tractare . . . negligenter et raptim’ Casaubon), but some (more or
less violent) disordering of the counters. Jebb and Ussher devise fantasies of
disorder. W. G. Arnott (CR 20 (1970) 278–80) rightly demurs. His transposition
kejlaion poianti t yjou diwqe±n, which has the slave ‘scatter’ the
counters to prevent a check on the calculation, makes our man a swindler,
which he is not.
kaª kejlaion poianti gryai aÉtäi e« l»gon: work out a total (XIV.2;
cf. XXIII.6) and ‘write it for him onto/for an account’, a blend of the uses
exemplified by (i) LSJ grjw a.ii.1 –2 and (ii) KG 2.470 (3), LSJ e« v.2. If we
keep aÉtäi, he instructs the slave to write his calculation for the other man,
implying that he cannot be troubled to check it himself. This is better than
aËtäi (Edmonds 1908 before Diels), since to instruct the slave to write the
calculation for him himself is not obviously discourteous to the other. But aÉtäi,
picking up the vague tina, from which it is widely separated, is a little awkward.
aÉt» (Pauw; not llo, as Giesecke reports), which reads more naturally, may
be right.
13 kaª pitllwn m grjein Âti: the introductory part. (VII.8n.) conveys

more than ‘writing a letter’ (Jebb, al.); rather ‘sending instructions by letter’
(‘give orders in writing’ LSJ). The instructions are framed in peremptory lan-
guage. This is a different kind of discourtesy from that shown by the aÉqdh
of Ariston, whose letters omit customary civilities: fr. 14, ii (p. 36.25–6 Wehrli)
gr[j]wn pitoln t¼ ca©rein m progryai (pro- P) mhd ì rräqai
teleuta±on (Introduction, p. 10). For Âti, II.8n.
113 Cf. (middle) A. fr. 199.8–9 (TrGFSel p. 26) o³ (sc. ptroi) . . . balÜn diÛhi (Coray:
dhÛei fere codd.) çaid©w L©gun trat»n, E. Herc. 315 Âpw diÛhi t tÅca
(‘thrust a way through’ Bond).
451
COMMENTARY
“ ìAptalka pr¼ lhy»meno”: cf. ‘Archytas’ ap. D.L. 3.22 (Hercher,

Epist. Gr. 132) petlkame toi pnte o¬ Pltwno j©loi tÜ perª
Lam©kon te kaª Fwt©dan polayoÅmenoi t¼n ndra kt tn pr tªn
genomnan ¾molog©an. The compendium in V is not ambiguous, as Diels
claims, but signifies (only) nom. -meno. Since ptalka calls for an object
(cf. §10 proapotllein . . . t¼n roÓnta, XVIII.2 pote©la t¼n pa±da
½ywnonta), we must either attribute the lack of object to the short-
hand style and his self-centredness or write lhy»menon (Ast, but implied
by Casaubon’s translation ‘misi ad te qui sumeret’) or lhyomnou (Foss
1858), preferably the latter (cf. X. Cyr. 3.1.2 katakeyomnou pempe, An.
1.3.14 pmyai . . . prokatalhyomnou, KG 1.609, 2.86 (5); XVIII.2n.). Not
ptalka (Ussher), which should be present not perfect.
“ í Opw llw m tai”: KG 2.376 Anmerk. 6, LSJ Âpw a.iii.8
“Tn tac©thn”: KG 1.313 Anmerk. 12, LSJ tacÅ c.ii.3; XXII.9n.
452
XXV
T H E C O WA R D
Introductory note
For Aristotle, courage (ndre©a) is the mean between fear and confidence
(qrro), and cowardice is an excess of fear and a deficiency of confidence (EN
1107 b 1 –4; cf. 1115 b 33–16a 1, EE 1220b 39). While the courageous man fears the
right things in the right manner at the right time (EN 1115 b 17–18 de± . . . kaª
Þ de± kaª Âte), the coward fears the wrong things in the wrong manner at the
wrong time (EN 1115 b 34–5, EE 1221 a 18–19). The coward fears everything, the
rash man (qraÅ) nothing (EN 1104 a 20–2, 1116a 3). A comparable formulation
is imputed to Theophrastus (fr. 449a Fortenbaugh) by Arius Didymus ap.
Stob. 2.7.20 (2.141.14–16 Wachsmuth): ndre±on (sc. e²nai) . . . oÎte t¼n mhdn
joboÅmenon . . . oÎte t¼n pnta.
The sketch is unusual in form. It falls into two parts: the first shows the
Coward at sea, the second shows him on the battlefield. The first part has a
structure resembling the other sketches: a series of illustrations, loosely linked.
The much longer second part, uniquely, has the form of a single, coher-
ent, developing narrative, a story of a Coward’s behaviour in battle. This
Coward, like Falstaff, holds that the better part of valour is discretion, and
masks his inaction with a tale of pretended courage. Aristotle observes that
courage and fear are nowhere more clearly displayed than in war and at sea
(EN 1115 a 34–b 1).
[1 ] Definition
ìAmlei d: II.9n.
d»xeien <n> e²nai: def. I n. Cf. Torraca (1994b) 610.
Ìpeix© ti yuc¦ mjobo: ‘a terrified giving-way of the mind’ is a vapid
expression. Ìpeixi was perhaps suggested by [Pl.] Def. 412d komi»th Ìpeixi
kou©a pr¼ t¼ jann bltiton (Ingenkamp 48), and yuc¦ and mjobo
by Def. 412a ndre©a xi yuc¦ k©nhto Ëp¼ j»bou (Ingenkamp 34–5; cf.
[Arist.] VV 1251 a 10–11 deil©a d ti t¼ Ëp¼ tän tuc»ntwn j»bwn eÉk©n-
hton e²nai). Ìpeixi is otherwise rare: figurative ‘compliance’, Pl. Lg. 727a ¢
tii l»goi £ dÛroi aÉtn (sc. yucn) aÎxein ¢ tiin Ëpe©xein, Plu. 483f,
751 d; literal ‘giving-ground’, Pl. Lg. 815a. mjobo is found once in classical
Greek (S. OC 39, active ‘terrifying’), but is common with passive sense (inad-
equately documented by LSJ ii) in post-classical writers (the earliest example
may be Phld. Rh. 2.150 fr. via Sudhaus p]r¼ tn . . . dujh[m©an m]j»bw
diake±[qai). There is no call for n j»bwi or -oi (Edmonds 1908) or k j»bou
453
COMMENTARY
(Navarre 1918). For ti, def. I n.; yuc¦ without art. (t¦ for ti c, ti <t¦>
Ast), def. XIV, XXVIII. See also Stein 248–9.
2 plwn: ‘while sailing’ sets the first scene (VII.8n.), before we move on to the
second scene, introduced at §3 by trateu»meno.
t kra jkein ¡miol©a e²nai: the Persians, retreating after Salamis,
were victims of a similar delusion: Hdt. 8.107.2 peª d gcoÓ §an Zwt¦ro
plonte o¬ brbaroi, nate©noui gr krai leptaª t¦ pe©rou taÅthi,
doxn te na e²nai kaª jeugon pª poll»n. Cf. Shakespeare, A Midsummer
Night’s Dream V.i.21 –2 ‘Or in the night, imagining some fear, / How easy is a
bush suppos’d a bear’.
The word ¡miol©a is first attested here and, without qualification, suggests
pirate ship. There were ¡mi»liai lhitrika© among the ships of Aristonicus,
tyrant of Methymna, in 332/1 bc (Arr. An. 3.2.4). ¡mi»liai were used for
raiding by Phalaecus of Phocis c. 346 bc (D.S. 16.61.4) and by Agathocles of
Syracuse c. 315 bc (D.S. 19.65.2). They were also used by Alexander on the
Hydaspes and Indus (Arr. An. 6.1.1, 6.18.3). The word is fully documented by
C. Blinkenberg, ‘Triemiolia’, Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Archaeologisk-
kunsthistoriske Meddelesler 2.3 = Lindiaka 7 (Copenhagen 1938).
It is disputed whether the name (‘one and a half-er’, sc. naÓ) alludes to
(i) one and a half banks of oars, or (ii) one and a half files of oarsmen. The
former is argued by L. Casson, JHS 78 (1958) 14–18 with Plates v–vi, Ships and
Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton 1971) 128–32 with Figs. 81 –2, 117, and
The Ancient Mariners (Princeton 2 1991) 78 with Plates 24–5. Casson identifies the
¡miol©a with a ship pictured in a scene of pursuit on an Attic black-figured cup
dated c. 540 bc. By an imaginative deduction from this scene, he infers that the
¡miol©a was designed as a light, fast, two-banked pirate ship, so constructed
that, when the quarry, pursued by sail and oar, was overtaken, half the rowers
in the upper bank, between mast and stern, were able to secure their oars and
leave their benches, stow the sail and lower the mast in the space vacated, and
then stand ready as a boarding party. This was accepted by J. S. Morrison and
R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships 900–322 BC (Cambridge 1968) 109, 245–6.
The alternative (in which the ship is single-banked, with half the oars on each
side manned by two oarsmen, half by one) is argued by J. S. Morrison, IJNA 9
(1980) 121 –6, who is answered by Casson, Ships and Seamanship (2 1986) 445–6,
who is answered in turn by Morrison, Greek and Roman Oared Warships (Oxford
1996) 262.114 On piracy, in general, see A. H. Jackson, ‘Privateers in the ancient
114 The anonymous fr. cited by EM 430.39–41 (ll kaª rpzei kaª elga©nei
ãper k Karik¦ ¡miol©a popephdhkÜ kaª taÓta u¬¼ ndr¼ eª toÆ n»mou
kaª tn dhmokrat©an boänto), which Morrison (1996) takes to be from an Attic
454
X X V: T H E C O W A R D
Greek world’, in M. R. D. Foot (ed.), War and Society: Historical Essays in Honour
and Memory of J. R. Western 1928–1971 (London 1973) 241 –53, W. K. Pritchett,
The Greek State at War v (Berkeley etc. 1991) 312–63, P. de Souza, ‘Greek Piracy’,
in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek World (London and New York 1995) 179–98, id.
Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge 1999).
kaª klÅdwno genomnou rwtn e ti m memÅhtai tän ple»ntwn: a
mystery cult, centred on Samothrace but widely spread throughout the Greek
world, promised safety on the sea to initiates. The cult was devoted to deities
called locally qeoª megloi, generally called Kbeiroi in literary sources. They
first intervened on behalf of the Argonauts, in answer to a prayer by Orpheus,
who had been initiated into their mysteries (D.S. 4.43.1 –2, 48.6). Prayer to
them during storms is mentioned by Alex. 183.4–6 (Arnott ad loc.), PCG adesp.
1063.15–16 (Men. fab. inc. 1 (ii) 15–16 Arnott), Call. Epigr. 47 Pfeiffer = Gow-
Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 1175–8 (1177n.). Initiation is specifically referred to in
Ar. Pax 277–8 ll ì e ti Ëmän n amoqrikhi tugcnei | memuhmno, nÓn
tin eÎxaqai kal»n (Olson ad loc.), D.S. 5.49.5–6, S A.R. 1.918 (cf. PCG adesp.
1146.21 –2). See further B. Hemberg, Die Kabiren (Uppsala 1950), S. G. Cole,
Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great Gods at Samothrace (Leiden 1984), Burkert,
Greek Religion 283–4, D. Vollkommer-Glökler, ‘Megaloi Theoi’, LIMC 8 (1997)
1.820–8, F. Graf, ‘Kabeiroi’, DNP 6 (1999) 123–7. Just as it is dangerous for the
irreligious to go to sea (Lys. 6.19) and dangerous for others to sail with them
(A. Th. 602–4, E. El. 1355, fr. 852, Antipho 5.82–3, X. Cyr. 8.1.25, Hor. Carm.
3.2.26–9; cf. Pease on Cic. N.D. 3.89, Parker, Miasma 9), so here (the Coward
farcically implies) a single non-initiate will endanger the boat. Deletion of m
(Blaydes) destroys this point. <um>ple»ntwn (Cobet 1874) is an unnecessary
embellishment.
kaª toÓ kuberntou nakÅptwn ma punqneqai: ‘raising his head’ (XI.3),
as opposed to ktw kekujÛ (XXIV.8). This probably implies ‘looking up’,
as E. Cycl. 212–13 pr¼ aÉt¼n t¼n D© ì nakekÅjamen | kaª ttra kaª t¼n
ìWr©wna drkomai, Pl. R. 529b n ½roj¦i poik©lmata qeÛmeno nakÅptwn,
[Arist.] Pr. 963 a 8 nakÅptomen pr¼ t¼n ¤lion, Luc. Dom. 2 pr¼ tn ½rojn
nakÅyai, Icar. 4 nakÅptein te kaª pr¼ t¼ pn poblpein. It is unlikely
that he is raising his head merely to look up at the helmsman (XXII.5n.),
who sits higher than he (Ilberg, al.). More likely he is looking up at the sky to
check the weather, about which he will soon question the helmsman (Navarre).
The alternative interpretation ‘popping up’ (Rusten, al.) is less satisfactory. It
obliges us to ask where he is popping up from, an unwelcome question, with
orator, is identified by K. Alpers, ‘Zwischen Athen, Abdera und Samos. Fragmente

eines unbekannten Romans aus der Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik’, in M. Billerbeck and
J. Schamp (edd.), Kainotomia: Die Erneuerung der griechischen Tradition (Freiburg Schweiz
1996) 19–55 (p. 34 on this fr.).
455
COMMENTARY
no obvious answer. nakÅptonto (Ussing), whether taken as ‘peeping out’ to

get a better view (Ussing) or ‘raising his head’ to observe the stars (Wilamowitz
1902b), is not an improvement. And nak»ptonto (c, with a«qneqai for mn
punqneqai) has no meaning appropriate here (at Arat. 346–7 p nak»ptei
| n¦a it is applied to rowers who ‘reverse the boat’ by backing water).
ma, placed between part. and infin. (XIX.5n.) and strengthening the logical
connection between them (he questions the helmsman while keeping his eye on
the weather), is a speculative emendation for mn (V), which is not defended by
IV.10, XXII.2 (both corrupt). Emendation is preferable to deletion (Schneider),
since there was no motive for interpolation. kpunqneqai (Navarre 1920) does
not appeal.
e« meopore±: in his anxiety for the voyage to be over he asks if they are
half-way. The verb is found first here and Men. fr. 587 (the use there was
censured by Phryn. Ecl. 392, 394 Fischer, but context and sense are unknown),
thereafter (‘be in mid-voyage’) D.S. 18.34.1, App. BC 2.88, (figurative) LXX
Si. 34(31).21, Dsc. 1.109.1, S Pi. N. 4.58b; cf. Luc. DMort. 21.2 kat mon t¼n
p»ron. The verb could mean ‘be in mid-ocean’: cf. E. Ion 1152 meop»rou di ì
a«qro ‘in mid-air’, Opp. H. 5.46 meop»roi . . . pelgei (LSJ Rev.Suppl.
meop»ro), perhaps Ael. NA 2.15 temnoÅa . . . mon t¼n p»ron t naÓ
(reminiscent of H. Od. 3.174–5 plago mon . . . tmnein). And some take him
to be asking if they are in the open sea (mid-ocean), as opposed to near the
coast, either because he fears the coast with its dangerous shallows (Casaubon)
or because he fears the open sea in bad weather (Ilberg). But he can see
for himself whether or not they are near the coast. No more plausible is the
interpretation ‘sail mid-way (between the shallows)’, i.e. ‘keep to the proper
channel’ (Edmonds and Austen).
kaª t© aÉtäi doke± t toÓ qeoÓ: cf. VIII.9 t¼ t¦ tÅch. For ¾ qe» of
natural phenomena, XIV.12n., LSJ i.1.d (add Ar. Pax 1141, V. 261, X. Oec. 17.2,
4); here Zeus, as weather-god, not Poseidon (Pauw). This use indicates not so
much ‘special reverence’ (Jebb) as the conventional piety of popular speech.
kaª pr¼ t¼n parakaqmenon lgein Âti jobe±tai p¼ nupn©ou tin»: cf.
XVI.11, Men. fr. 844.10–11 n dhi ti nÅpnion, j»dra | joboÅmeq ì .
kaª kdÆ did»nai täi paidª t¼n citwn©kon: the citwn©ko (XIX.6n.) will
be harder to get out of if he has to swim than the loosely-draped ¬mtion worn
over it. So he takes it off now as a precaution and gives it to his slave to look
after. The implication is that he strips bare. Cf. D. 21.216 qo«mtion proqai
kaª mikroÓ gumn¼n n täi citwn©kwi genqai.
kaª de±qai pr¼ t¦n g¦n progein aËt»n: the object of de±qai is
not expressed, because what he says (‘Get me to land’) does not have to
be addressed to anyone in particular. There is no need for aÉtoÓ (Hanow
1860) or transposition of this clause (with aÉt»n V retained) after qeoÓ
(Hanow 1861).
456
3 kaª trateu»meno <toÓ> pezoÓ kbohqoÓnto † t† prokale±n: ‘when

he is on military service’ introduces the second scene (see on §2 plwn). The
article is needed (‘the infantry’, not ‘infantry’ in general). The choice is between
<toÓ> pezoÓ kb- (Wilamowitz 1902b) and kb- toÓ pezoÓ (Petersen). With
the former, t may be a vestige of the object which is needed for prokale±n.
With the latter, it may be a corruption of toÓ (cf. X.3 t ac: te AB). None of
the objects suggested imposes itself: <toÆ qarralewtrou> Ribbeck 1870,
<polloÅ> or <Þ ple©tou> or <toÆ dhm»ta> Ilberg, tina (for t)
Holland 1897, <tin> te Fraenkel and Groeneboom, <toÆ j©lou> Sit-
zler, <pnta> Immisch 1923, <toÆ u©tou> Edmonds 1929 (X.3n.).
Nor does any conjecture with pez¦ (Vs ) appeal: pez¦i <toÆ> kbohqoÓnta
Schneider (kbohqoÓnt te reported from V by Siebenkees; <toÆ> kbo-
hqoÓnt te Ussing, Jebb), kbohqoÓnta ¬ppa Meier 1842, kbohqoÅntwn
Hartung. There is little likelihood in te (only II.4, XIII.10). <o³»> te (Stark)
is unthinkable.
keleÅwn pr¼ aËt¼n tnta präton periide±n: for pr» with a verb
‘implying previous motion’, LSJ c.i.2, KG 1.543–4. This construction is
clumsily eliminated in c by rewriting (trateu»meno d prokale±n pnta
pr¼ aÉt¼n kaª tnta), and nothing should be founded on that (pnta
pr¼ aËt¼n keleÅwn tnta Edmonds 1929, pnta keleÅwn pr¼ aËt¼n
katatnta Stark, p- k- pr¼ aËt¼n tnta Rusten).
periide±n is not ‘take a look round’ (LSJ i.2, citing only this passage) but ‘wait
and see’. In this sense, the active verb takes an object at Th. 4.71.1 t¼ mllon
periide±n, Isoc. 9.30 periide±n e tine aËtäi tän politän bohqouin (LSJ
iii.2), and the middle is used absolutely at Th. 6.93.1, 103.2, 7.33.2 (LSJ v.1).
Hence periidqai Wilamowitz 1902b. Cf. Ter. Eu. 788–9 mane: | omnia prius
experiri quam armis sapientem decet.
kaª lgein Þ rgon diagnänai [ti] p»tero© e«in o¬ polmioi: ‘it is
difficult’ (epil. III n.), not ‘their task is’ (Rusten). Since ti would be abnormally
placed, and is regularly absent in this idiom (epil. III, HP 4.10.5, X. Cyr.
3.3.27, HG 6.1.19, D. 15.34, 25.47, 59.91, Arist. EN 1109a 25, HA 574 b 16–17,
Rh. 1407 b 14, Pol. 1266b 13, 1286a 35, Men. Dysc. 905, Karch. 7, Sic. 410, Diph. 100,
Posidipp. 21), it is less plausibly transposed (rgon tª diagnänai Darvaris)
than deleted. Cf. H. Il. 5.85 Tude©dhn d ì oÉk n gno©h potroii mete©h.
4 epa . . . trcein pª tn khnn, t¼n pa±da kpmya kaª keleÅa . . .
pokrÅyai . . ., e²ta diatr©bein: epa is, in itself, no less plausible than
e«pe±n (c) as a correction of e²pe (V, ou s.l.); for this form, rather than e«pÛn
(Foss 1858), V.2n. And the part. gives the sentence a much better balance than
the infinitive. The first two clauses have a similar structure: part. (epa and
kpmya kaª keleÅa), dependent clause (Âti ktl. and poÓ ktl.), infin. (tr-
cein and pokrÅyai). Then e²ta diatr©bein ktl. completes the tricolon; and
457
COMMENTARY
since e²ta is not strictly connective the tricolon may be considered asyndetic
(V.10n.). There is no need to eliminate the asyndeton with <kaª> t¼n pa±da
(J. M. Gesner). The sequence of present and aorist participles koÅwn . . . kaª
¾rän . . . epa is comparable to ¾rän . . . prodramÛn at §5 (XXX.8n.).
With e«pe±n, we would have (before e²ta diatr©bein) not two well-balanced but
three ill-balanced clauses in asyndeton: a long and complex clause introduced
by infin. (e«pe±n . . . pelqeto), a brief and simple clause introduced by infin.
(trcein pª tn khnn), a third clause, long and complex, introduced not by
infin. but by part. (t¼n pa±da kpmya ktl.). Contrast the simpler and more
balanced asyndetic clauses at VI.6, XIX.5. Further, with three initial clauses,
aÉtn in the third refers to pqhn in the first; with two, pqhn is (much more
naturally) in the clause which precedes. The asyndeton is crudely eliminated
in part by c: <kaª> trcein Ëp¼ tn khnn, t¼n pa±da kpmya keleÅein . . .
<kaª> pokrÅyai. It is misguided to adopt keleÅein for kaª keleÅa (Rusten
silently), since the corruption is unaccountable and there is no offence in the
paired participles kpmya kaª keleÅa (§5 prodramÜn kaª . . . keleÅa,
IX.8n.). For the same reason, we do not need keleÅwn (Casaubon for keleÅein
in c, Edmonds 1929 for kaª keleÅa) or kpmyai keleÅwn (Darvaris).
tn pqhn labe±n: the noun, used of various implements with a broad
blade, is applied to a sword-blade in Alc. 357.7LP (D. L. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus
(Oxford 1955) 218–19) and E. fr. 373.2 (satyric) pqhi . . . jagnou; thereafter,
in the sense ‘sword’, it appears only in New Comedy (Philem. 73, Men. Mis.
429 Arnott (29 Sandbach), 578 (178), 677 (276), fr. 6 Arnott, Sandbach (12
Koerte), Pk. 355, Sam. 659, 660, 687, 720), where it possibly denotes the long
sword introduced by Iphicrates at the beginning of the 4th cent. (D.S. 15.44.3
t . . . x©jh ced¼n diplia katekeÅaen), and then in writers of the Roman
period (D.S. 5.30.3, 7.7.1, Parth. 24.1, Arr. Tact. 4.6, al., Polyaen. 2.27.1, Luc.
DMeretr. 13.1, 3). Whence Latin spatha, Italian spada, French épée.
t¼n pa±da kpmya: VIII.4n.
pokrÅyai aÉtn Ëp¼ t¼ prokejlaion: either ‘pillow’ or ‘cushion’
(II.11 n.). pr¼ (V) is an error of anticipation before prokejlaion (see on
IV.13 periÛn). Ëp¼ (Casaubon: pr¼ V) is reported from Mutin. (26 Wilson)
by Torraca (1994b) 611.
5 kaª n t¦i khn¦i ¾rän traumat©an tin projer»menon tän j©lwn: ‘while
in the tent’, with ellipse of ßn, comparable to Th. 3.112.3 ti n ta± eÉna±
‘while still in bed’ (cf. 4.32.1 ; KG 2.101 –3). But the expression recurs below
(if kaqmeno n t¦ khn¦i is genuine), and it could be deleted here with-
out loss (Herwerden). Alternatively, k t¦ khn¦ (contemplated by Ussing,
before Edmonds 1929). With the transposition n t¦i khn¦i· kaª (Coray), the
expression, if taken with Þ zhtän, is redundant, since it is obvious that he is
searching in the tent; if with diatr©bein (Foss 1835), less redundant but against
458
the natural order. Deletion of n (Hartung) leaves the dat. awkwardly waiting
to receive its construction from projer»menon.
prodramÜn kaª qarre±n keleÅa ËpolabÜn jrein: he orders the
wounded man to be of good courage, the quality which he himself lacks.
ËpolabÛn is either ‘taking on his back’ (Hdt. 1.24.6, Pl. R. 453d, the dolphin
and Arion) or ‘supporting’ (Pl. Smp. 212d, a woman helping a drunkard). For
the relationships between the participles, IX.8n.
kaª toÓton qerapeÅein kaª peripogg©zein: the latter verb is sometimes
taken as ‘sponge around’, as Hp. Morb. 2.13 (7.24 Littré) peripogg©zein kaª
m brcein, ‘to sponge around and not wet’ (the wound), i.e. to cleanse the
area around the wound with water, but not the wound itself, which would be
cleansed with wine, because wine has antiseptic properties (Hp. Ulc. 1 (6.400)
lkea xÅmpanta oÉ cr tggein pln onwi, Luke 10.34). But here, where
the object is not the wound but the wounded man, it probably means ‘sponge
all over’, as e.g. Gal. 13.357 Kühn (of feet), Orib. 46.19.18 (CMG vi 2,1 p. 226)
(head). Cf. Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 143 n. 5.
kaª parakaqmeno p¼ toÓ lkou t mu©a obe±n: cf. muio»bh ‘fly-
whisk’ (Men. fr. 395.2, Anaxipp. 7, Ael. NA 15.14); H. Il. 4.130–1 Þ Âte mthr
| paid¼ rghi mu±an, Mart. 3.82.12 fugatque muscas myrtea puer uirga; M. Davies
and J. Kathirithamby, Greek Insects (London 1986) 150–5.
kaª pn mllon £ mceqai to± polem©oi: for pn mllon ¢, Hdt. 4.162.4,
7.38.2, Pl. Plt. 296b, R. 420d, 516e, Ti. 37c; LSJ p d.iii.2. No need for pnta
(Meineke).
6 kaª toÓ alpiktoÓ d t¼ polemik¼n hmnanto: cf. X. An. 4.3.29 peidn . . .

¾ alpikt (-igkt codd.) hmnhi t¼ polemik»n. For trumpets, Olson on
Ar. Pax 1240–1 ; for the spelling alpiktoÓ (not -itoÓ V), Threatte 1.574.
kaqmeno n t¦i khn¦i: deleted by Herwerden as repeating n t¦i khn¦i
and parakaqmeno.
<e«pe±n> “*pag ì k»raka· oÉk ei t¼n nqrwpon Ìpnou lace±n
pukn hma©nwn”: <e«pe±n> was added by Pauw before Schneider; alter-
natively <j¦ai> (Sitzler). A verb of speech is indispensable (see on VIII.2
pibale±n ktl.). But it might be placed later: “ *pag ì k»raka” <e«pe±n>·
“oÉk . . .”. Cf. XVII.6, 9.
pag ì k»raka recurs in Men. Dysc. 432, Pk. 396. page (intrans.) is
found with similar expressions ( makar©an Ar. Eq. 1151, e« t¼ braqron
Men. Dysc. 394, 575, t¼n jq»ron Epich. 154) and on its own (Ar. Pax 1053,
E. Ph. [1733], D. 22.26, Men. Dysc. 920, PCG adesp. 1006.12). For k»raka,
Olson on Ar. Pax 19; for the orthography ( not e«), Gomme and Sandbach on
Dysc. 432, Arnott on Alex. 99.5. Since page is addressed to the trumpeter, it
is more natural to continue with a second-person address to him (ei) than
with a third-person statement about him (ei V). For such a continuation in
459
COMMENTARY
the second person (after k»raka), Ar. Nu. 646, 871, Men. Epit. 160, Pherecr.
76.5.
In place of Ìpnou labe±n (V), with an unbelievable partitive gen., the choice
is between Ìpnou lace±n (F. L. Abresch, Lectionum Aristaenetearum Libri Duo
(Zwoll 1749) 183, Reiske 1749 (Briefe 362), before Cobet 1858) and Ìpnon labe±n
(Dobree before Blaydes, who, like Eberhard 1865, wrongly attributes it to Cobet
1858, who explicitly repudiated it). For the latter (in which Ìpnon is subject,
nqrwpon object, of labe±n), VII.10n. For Ìpnou lace±n, Hdt. 3.130.3, Pl. Lg.
791 a, X. Cyr. 3.1.24, Hier. 6.9, Luc. Cyn. 9; cf. Cratin. 233 Ìpnou l- mro, X.
An. 3.1.11 mikr¼n Ìpnou l-, also XVIII.4 Ìpnou tugcnein. The corruption
of lace±n to labe±n (lac- and lab- are variants in S. Ai. 825, E. Ion 1295) is
likelier than that of Ìpnon to Ìpnou. Further, the sentence reads more naturally
with nqrwpon than with Ìpnon as the object of oÉk ei. With the whole
expression cf. Ar. Ach. 713 toÆ gronta oÉk q ì Ìpnou tuce±n.
7 kaª dihge±qai Þ kinduneÅa “íEna wka tän j©lwn”: dihge±qai intro-
duces direct speech, and Þ kinduneÅa is like §4 Þ zhtän (cf. II.4, XVII.8,
9, XIX.8). Elsewhere dihge±qai introduces indirect speech and is followed
by Þ or Âti (XXI.11 n.). Hence Þ kinduneÅa na wke . . . (Casaubon,
Cobet 1874). Alternatively, since Þ introduces direct speech at XXVI.4 and
XXIX.5, Þ “KinduneÅa na wka . . .” (Schneider 1818). But Þ taken
with kinduneÅa conveys exactly the right note of pretence. If direct speech
without introduction is offensive, we could write <Âti> “ í Ena . . .” (II.8n.). To
claim, as an argument against admitting direct speech here, that dihge±qai
implies something lengthier than a speech of four words, is unsafe, in view of
XI.9.
8 kaª e«gein pr¼ t¼n katake©menon keyomnou: t¼n katake©menon is ‘the

man who lies (ill) in bed’, ‘the patient’ (Hdt. 3.29.3, 7.229.1, LSJ katkeimai
4). Latin cubare and iacere are similarly used. They are to ‘take a look at’ him,
‘inspect’ him (LSJ kptomai i). There is no need for <pi>keyomnou
(Cobet 1874), ‘visit the sick bed’ (LSJ pikopw i.2).
toÆ dhm»ta, <toÆ jrtera>, toÆ julta: since a pair of items in
asyndeton is much less regular and natural than a tricolon (J. D. Denniston,
Greek Prose Style (Oxford 1952) 105, MacDowell on D. 21.81) and T. has several
asyndetic tricola (V.10n.), I add a noun which regularly appears in partnership
with each of the other two nouns.
dhm»tai and jultai are commonly paired: e.g. Arist. EN 1160a 18 jultai
kaª dhm»tai, Aeschin. 3.44, 45 (also in the order dhm- kaª jul- 3.45), Isoc.
12.145. As well as belonging to deme and tribe, every Athenian belonged
to a third group, the phratry. jrtere are commonly mentioned alongside
dhm»tai: Is. 2.16 toÆ jrtera . . . kaª toÆ dhm»ta (cf. 14, 17, 45, 6.10, 9.8,
460
D. 43.36, 44.44, 57.24, 40, 46, 69, 59.13, 122, Cratin.Iun. 9.3), Is. 6.64 toÆ
d- kaª toÆ j- (cf. D. 44.44, 57.19, D.Chr. 2.63). Alongside jultai: Arist. Pol.
1262 a 12 jrtera julthn, Plu. Pel. 18.3 julta . . . juletän kaª jratrwn
<jrtera> oÉ polÆn l»gon cein n to± deino± (reflecting H. Il. 2.362–3
kr±n ì ndra kat jÓla, kat jrtra, ìAgmemnon, | Þ jrtrh jrtrhjin
rghi, jÓla d jÅloi), Luc. Merc.Cond. 24 jultai kaª jrteri. All three
together: Luc. Tim. 43 jultai . . . kaª jrtere kaª dhm»tai, Poll. 3.51
julth dhm»th jrthr.
The Athenian army was composed of units of men from the same jul
(Th. 6.98.4, 6.101.5, Lys. 13.79, 16.15, Is. 2.42, X. HG 4.2.19, 21, Eq.Mag. 2.5,
Plu. Arist. 5.4, Cim. 17.4; Hornblower on Th. 2.34.3). The jula©, of which
there were ten, were constituted from the d¦moi, of which there were 139
(Whitehead, Demes of Attica 16–23). Fellow demesmen will often have served
together on campaign: cf. Lys. 16.14, 20.13, 31.15, Is. 2.42; R. G. Osborne,
Demos (Cambridge 1985) 42, Whitehead 224–6. But, since a deme might have
as few as 100–200 members (X.11 n.), the number of demesmen on service in
the same infantry unit at one and the same time may not have been large.
The number of the phratries (hence the number of their members) is indeter-
minable: perhaps at least 30, but probably fewer (and so with more members)
than the demes (S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor 1993) 18–20,
id. ‘Phratries’, OCD3 1176, Parker, Athenian Religion 107, N. F. Jones, The Associa-
tions of Classical Athens (New York and Oxford 1999) 200). Membership of deme
and phratry sometimes overlapped (Whitehead 31, Parker 105, Jones 212). If
the number of jrtere in the unit is likely to have exceeded the number
of dhm»tai to a significant degree, then <toÆ jrtera> is most naturally
placed second in the list, so that there will be a progressive increase in numbers.
But, since the numbers are so uncertain and may be quite small, I have lim-
ited faith in this argument. And when jrtere and dhm»tai are mentioned
together (see the list above), the commoner order is jrtere before dhm»-
tai. So <toÆ jrtera> might equally well be placed first. At all events,
dhm»tai and jrtere must stand side by side. For, while all members of
the same deme (and possibly all members of the same phratry) are members
of the same tribe, not all members of the same tribe are members of the
same deme or phratry. The Coward proceeds from dhm»tai and jrtere (or
jrtere and dhm»tai) to jultai, from the smaller groups to the whole tribe,
as rhetoric and enthusiasm carry him away. Each of these groups individually
would be a natural object of address for him (Parker 107). He might even, in
peace, be obliged to invite one of them to dinner: dhm»tai (X.11 n.), jrtere
(XXX.16n.), jultai (X.11 n.). The comedy lies in his linking all three, with
extravagant expansiveness, in a communal invitation to see the charade inside
his tent. The right spelling is not jrtora (V at XXX.16) but jrtera
(XXX.16n.).
461
COMMENTARY
Other suggestions: to link the two nouns with ka© (toÆ julta <kaª>
t¼n d¦mon J. M. Gesner (toÆ j- t¼n d¦mon c); toÆ dhm»ta <kaª> julta
Siebenkees as if from V; better toÆ d- <kaª> toÆ j-), possible but crude; to
delete toÆ dhm»ta (Hanow 1861 before Diels), implausible, since there was
no motive for interpolation.
kaª toÅtwn mì ktwi dihge±qai: ‘and at the same time (as he invites
them in) explain to each of them’, with kaª . . . ma . . . dihge±qai taken
together (cf. XXVII.13). Not ma with toÅtwn ktwi, ‘and explain to each
one of these at the same time’ (as opposed to individually), since the tent would
not accommodate a whole unit.
Þ aÉt¼ aÉt¼n ta± autoÓ cerªn pª khnn k»mien: cf. IX.8 aÉt¼
aËtoÓ, XXVII.15 aÉt¼ aËtäi, KG i.560–1. The interposed aÉt»n creates a
comic polyptoton. For the form aut-, I.2n. No need for pª <tn> khnn
(Coray before Ast; reported from Mutin. (26 Wilson) by Torraca (1994b) 611);
IV.2n.
P. Oxy. 699 has an abbreviated version of the opening of XXVI, and a few
words from the end of XXV, which also suggest abbreviation. The edd. pr.
read and supplemented k]a. ª. l. g. e.i.n p. [. . . . . . . . . | a]É. t¼n Û[a pª kh|n]n.
At beginning, ]a. i. very uncertain: low speck perhaps from bottom of a vertical,
speck at mid height, vertical sloping down to left (the slope more pronounced
than is normal for i). Then lgein almost certain; p[ and a]uton certain. After
w a high speck. p[ä aÉt¼ a]Ét¼n Û[eien Diels (Û[ai Edmonds 1910).
p[ä k»mien | a]Ét¼n Ûa. [ is conceivable.
462
XXVI
T H E O L I G A RC H I C M A N
Introductory note
The Oligarchic Man is a dandy and a snob (§4) and an unashamed boor
(§2). He grumbles conspiratorially to fellow oligarchs (§3), or descants in
public at midday, when most people are indoors, against the institutional
vices of democracy, such as sycophants, law-courts, liturgies, and demagogues
(§4–§5). He intervenes only once in public debate, to parrot inappropriate
oligarchic slogans (§2). He is a blustering ineffectual figure, not to be taken
seriously.
Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries alternated long periods of democ-
racy with short periods of oligarchy. Theophrastus lived through two periods
of oligarchic government: under Phocion (322–318) and under Demetrius of
Phaleron (317–307). But the period before then, between the oligarchic revo-
lutions at the end of the fifth century and 322, was one of exceptionally stable
democracy, when ‘no one can justly be labelled oligarchic’.115 A few might
aspire to that name. ‘The language of Demosthenes [15.17–21 ] suggests that
no one who sought advancement in Athenian politics would dare to call him-
self an oligarch. The word was used of some amusing eccentrics who took
no part in public life [T. Char. 26]. Such people were often young men, who
gave themselves bold names and worked off their high spirits by brawling;
sometimes they wore Spartan cloaks, and it was said that they would give false
evidence in court to defend one another [D. 54.14–37]. . . . Clearly such peo-
ple . . . were harmless, because they had no influence and did not belong to
the circle of practical politicians.’116
This hits off Theophrastus’s Oligarchic Man, and it is reasonable to regard
him as belonging to the period before 322. See the Introduction, pp. 32–6.
[1 ] Definition
d»xeien d ì n e²nai ¡ ½ligarc©a <proa©re©> ti «cÅo kaª krdou gli-
comnh: V is lacunose, and P is defective where it is needed. The edd. pr. read
| h oli]g[arc]ia et[in jilarci | a] t. i icuo i.[. . . . . . . . . | g]licomenh. The
previous line is vacant after | n]hn. The new sketch is unlikely to have begun
at the (missing) end of that line. For, if it did, we should have to suppose that
the line-division was (most artificially) (¡ d) o | li]g[arc]ia. It will have begun
115 P. J. Rhodes, LCM 3 (1978) 208.

116 R. Sealey, JHS 75 (1955) 81 = Essays in Greek Politics (New York 1967) 177.
463
COMMENTARY
(as the edd. pr. assumed) in ekthesis: perhaps ¡ ½|l]i. (a trace of i is visible), with
ekthesis of the two letters ho (my vertical indicates the expected line-beginning:
the alignment shown by the edd. pr. is astray), although we cannot rule out
¡ d() ½|l]i.. I reject (with edd. pr.) the possibility that the other lines began
further left. That they began where marked is established, above all, by lines
11 –12 of P, where bail[eu] | kai is inescapable.
The supplement usually adopted in V is <jilarc©a> (c), a word attested
first in Plb. (3.8.1, 6.49.3, al.), and common thereafter (e.g. Phld. Piet., P. Herc.
1428 col. xv, 11 (ed. A. Henrichs, CErc 4 (1974) 25), D.H. 1.85.6, 10.54.7,
often in App. and Plu.). It is presumably a mere guess in c. Navarre and
Stein rightly object that jilarc©a (‘love of rule, lust of power’ LSJ) «cÅo
glicomnh (‘desirous of power’) is tautologous. No later proposal satisfies: jil-
etair©a Meier 1850, jilotim©a or pleonex©a Navarre 1918, nteuxi mentioned
but declined by Stein.
So jilarci |a] t. i cannot be the right supplement in P. And I judge that ]ti
is less likely than ]i. All that remains of the first letter is the upper part
of a vertical attached to a right horizontal. There is enough space, between
the vertical and the edge of the papyrus, for the left horizontal of t. But there
is no trace of ink here. This would be explicable if the surface of the papyrus is
damaged: but there is no visible evidence of surface damage. Further, there is
decided curvature at the top of the vertical. The trace is compatible with the
upper arc of . The second letter is almost certainly i (all but the top visible).
The third, a high trace, is compatible with the top arc of .
I suggest proa©|re]i (‘in political language, deliberate course of action, policy’,
‘mode of government’ LSJ 3), applied in the latter sense to oligarchy by D. 13.8
tn pr¼ t ½ligarc©a Ëpr aÉt¦ t¦ proairew cqran. The word is
used (more neutrally) in [Pl.] Def. 413a, e. If it appeared here, proairoumnou
in the epilogue will be an echo of it. The space in P suits et[i ti proai|re]i.
The order t© ti + noun is natural and regular (with predicative noun, as
here, D. 21.7 eper Ëbriqnta mhdemi d©kh tuce±n t©n ti umjor). In
V the order <proa©re©> ti is preferable. In other definitions ti follows
its noun (XIII, XVIII, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV; cf. def. I n.), and the
order which I postulate here (verb, subject, predicate + ti) is found at XVIII
(tin mlei <¡> pit©a Ëp»lhy© ti) and XXIV (ti d ¡ Ëperhjan©a
katajr»nh© ti). Stein observes that ½ligarc©a, elsewhere a mode of gov-
ernment, is here uniquely applied to a mode of behaviour, almost ‘oligarchic
spirit’ (he disposes of alleged parallels). proa©rei, applicable to both govern-
ment and behaviour, lessens the anomaly. With the expression proa©rei . . .
glicomnh cf. Arist. EN 1094 a 1 –2 (the opening of the work) pa . . . proa©rei
gaqoÓ tin¼ j©eqai doke±, 1095 a 14–15 pa . . . proa©rei gaqoÓ tin¼
½rgetai, Plu. 424d oÎte t Ûmata proa©rein cei kaª ¾rmn ï toÓ mou
gl©cetai.
464
XXVI: THE OLIGARCHIC MAN
The supplement «cÅo k. [aª krdou (Edmonds 1908) is certain. Corruption

of «cÅo ka© to «curä (V) may have arisen (as Diels suggests) from confusion
of the compendia for -w and ka© (cf. E. Herc. 801, Ph. 492, Ba. 824, fr. 358.2;
Bast, Commentatio Palaeographica (ap. G. H. Schaefer, Greg. Cor., Leipzig 1811) 781);
alternatively, from confusion of o and w (XVIII.6n.), with casual loss of ka©.
Jebb had already proposed «cÅo, but he introduced an unwanted negative
(«cÅo oÉ krdou), as had Casaubon («cur krdou oÉ), both of them sup-
posing that avarice is characteristic more of democrats than oligarchs. In fact,
oligarchy is traditionally associated with wealth (e.g. Pl. R. 550c polite©an n ï
o¬ mn ploÅioi rcouin, pnhti d oÉ mtetin rc¦, Arist. Pol. 1294 a 10–11
Âro . . . ½ligarc©a . . . ploÓto), and oligarchs are traditionally avaricious
(e.g. Pl. R. 548a piqumhtaª . . . crhmtwn . . . ãper o¬ n ta± ½ligarc©ai,
551 a jilocrhmatitaª kaª jilocrmatoi, 553d-555a, Arist. Pol. 1321 a 41 –2
t lmmata . . . zhtoÓin oÉc ¨tton £ tn timn), particularly Spartans
(a«crokerde± E. Andr. 451, Ar. Pax 623; cf. Hdt. 5.51.2, Isoc. 11.20, X. Lac.
14.3, Arist. Pol. 1271 a 3–5, 1271 b 16–17, fr. 544 Rose, Plu. Lyc. 30.1 ; M. Goebel,
Ethnica, pars prima: De Graecarum Ciuitatum Proprietatibus Prouerbio notatis (Breslau
1915) 48). But ‘power’ and ‘profit’ have nothing to do with the Oligarchic Man,
and the definition is therefore inept.
2 ëO d ½ligarcik¼ toioÓt» <ti> o³o: ½l©garco (V) is not attested. In

P the edd. pr. read [o de oligarci | k]o. Likelier may be [o oligarci | k]o
or [o de oligar | c]o: either would give a line roughly the same length as the
preceding line. Then toiouto idia[. . . . . ] | me.n legwn ouk [agaqon edd. pr.
(at the beginning of the second line, m probable rather than certain; second,
curved top, probably e or o). Perhaps this implies punctuation after toioÓto,
with the following clauses in explanatory asyndeton and finite verbs instead
of infinitives. There is no obvious supplement: “«d©a[i” jh© “zä]men” Diels
(uncouth, and too long), «di[zetai Edmonds 1910. For <ti>, I.2n.; for its
attestation in c, Torraca (1994b) 611.
toÓ dmou bouleuomnou t©na täi rconti proairontai t¦ pomp¦
toÆ unepimelhomnou: the future proairontai (here in an indirect
question) corresponds to a fut. sometimes used in a direct question as virtual
equivalent of a deliberative subjunctive (Goodwin §68, KG 2.223 Anmerk.
5). For the order t¦ pomp¦ toÆ unepimelhomnou, XXIII.7n.; for
toÅ (suspected by Bloch, deleted by Ast before Cobet 1874), XVIII.2n.
The eponymous archon organised the annual procession at the Great
Dionysia (Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 61 –3, S. G. Cole, ‘Procession and celebra-
tion at the Dionysia’, in R. Scodel (ed.), Theater and Society in the Classical World
(Ann Arbor 1993) 25–38, Csapo and Slater 105–6, 113–15, Wilson, Khoregia
97–8) with the help of ten pimelhta©, who were originally elected by a show
of hands in the Assembly and contributed to the expenses of the procession
465
COMMENTARY
from their own pockets but were afterwards chosen by lot, one from each tribe,
and received an allowance ([Arist.] Ath. 56.4 pompän d ì pimele±tai t¦ te
n täi ìAklhpiäi gignomnh . . . kaª t¦ Dionu©wn tän meglwn met
tän pimelhtän, oÍ pr»teron mn ¾ d¦mo ceirot»nei dka Ànta, kaª t
e« tn pompn nalÛmata par ì aËtän nlikon, nÓn d ì na t¦ jul¦
kth klhro± kaª d©dwin e« tn katakeun kat¼n mn). I discuss the
implications of this for the date of the sketch in the Introduction, pp. 33–5.
parelqÜn pojnaqai: although the corruption pojna cei (V) is
odd, pojnaqai (Reiske 1757, before Schneider) hits exactly the right note
(‘declare an opinion’, LSJ b.ii.1 –2). For parelqÛn, XXI.11 n.
Þ de± aÉtokrtora toÅtou e²nai: the term ‘plenipotentiary’ is applied to
an official who is empowered to act without reference to other authority in an
emergency or special circumstance (archons, Th. 1.126.8; generals, Th. 6.8.2,
26.1, 72.5, [Arist.] Ath. 31.2; xuggraje± drafting constitutional proposals, Th.
8.67.1 ; Boule, And. 1.15 (P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 171 n. 1,
186–8); ambassadors or negotiators, Ar. Pax 359, Au. 1595, Lys. 1010, Lys. 13.9;
the Ten appointed after the fall of the Thirty, [Arist.] Ath. 38.1). See LSJ i.2,
Gomme on Th. 1.126.8. Comically, the Oligarchic Man demands these powers
even for minor officials performing a routine ceremonial office. More precisely,
he demands that they should be empowered to act independently of each
other and not in accordance with a collective decision of the whole board (for
this fundamental democratic principle see Hansen, Athenian Democracy 237–9,
L. Rubinstein, Litigation and Cooperation: Supporting Speakers in the Courts of Classical
Athens (Stuttgart 2000) 186). He then goes on to argue that only one good
man and true is needed, not a board of ten, which is another way of securing
independence for the official.
Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 58 n. 3, takes his demand to be ‘that the archon
ought to manage the festival-procession without being hampered by pimelh-
ta© responsible to the demos’. For that, we should need to change aÉtokr-
tora toÅtou to singular. And singular has, indeed, been suggested, though
clumsily: ke±non Þ de± aÉtokrtora toÅtwn P. L. Courier on X. Eq.Mag.
1.8 (Paris 1813), <aÉt¼n> aÉtokrtora toÅtou Fraenkel and Groeneboom.
If singular is appropriate, the simple change aÉtokrtora toÓton will satisfy.
But the sense of the passage will not be quite so simple as Pickard-Cambridge
appears to imply. When the Oligarchic Man objects to the proposal to elect
ten by claiming that one is enough, but that he must be a good man, the one
is not the archon, who is already in office, but the man to be elected, since ‘he
must be a good man’ is a criterion of electability. So he will be arguing first
that the archon should act alone, then that, if he is to have assistants, he should
have only one. This makes good sense. But it is not demonstrably preferable
to what is transmitted.
466
kn lloi probllwntai dka: not lloi (Edmonds 1929), which would
mean ‘everyone else present’ (II.4, 10, XI.3, XIV.12, XIX.9) rather than ‘the
other speakers’. Ten (usually one from each tribe) was the regular number for
a board of officials.
lgein Âti “ ë Ikan¼ e³ ti, toÓton d de± ndra e²nai”: plurality of officers
is a principle of democracy, singularity of oligarchy (Hansen, Athenian Democracy
226, 237). His remark combines two familiar tags. With the first, ¬kan¼ e³ ti,
cf. Epich. 161 t pr¼ toÓ dÅ ì ndre legon, e³ gÜn pocrw; (Pl. Grg. 505e
¯na moi t toÓ ì Epicrmou gnhtai; pr¼ toÓ dÅo ndre legon, e³ àn
¬kan¼ gnwmai;), Pl. Prtg. 322c e³ cwn «atrikn pollo± ¬kan¼ «diÛtai,
R. 502b e³ ¬kan¼ gen»meno, Lg. 764e ¬kan¼ . . . e³ rcwn aÉto±, [Pl.]
Demod. 380d, 381 b, Plu. 986b, Luc. Herm. 53. With the second, toÓton . . .
de± ndra e²nai, H. Il. 5.529 al. nre te, E. El. 693 ndra g©gneqa© e
cr, Cycl. 595 ll ì Âpw nr hi, Hermipp. 57.8 nr gegnhtai, Men.
Sam. 349–50 nÓn ndra cr | e²na© e, PCG adesp. 1063.3 (Men. fab. inc. 1 (ii) 3
Arnott) nÓn nr genoÓ, X. An. 7.1.21 nÓn oi xetin . . . ndrª genqai, Cic.
Fam. 5.18.1 te . . . oro te conligas uirumque praebeas; LSJ nr iv (where belong also
S. OC 393, Ar. Eq. 178–9, 333, 392, Lys. 1024, Pl. Smp. 192a, Men. Asp. 243,
Pk. 380, Sam. 512); Otto, Sprichwörter 373, G. Großmann, Politische Schlagwörter
aus der Zeit des Peloponnesischen Krieges (Zurich 1950) 111 –15, Dover, Greek Popular
Morality 102.
There are two anomalies in lgein “ ë Ikan¼ e³ ti”, toÓton d Âti de±
ktl. (V): (i) d linking indirect speech to direct (VI.9n.), (ii) late position of Âti.
The punctuation “. . . toÓton d” Âti “de± ndra e²nai” (Rusten) highlights the
problem by its artificiality. With Âti removed, the words become a continuation
of direct speech, and d links quoted words as at II.2, XXVIII.2, 4. Âti must
be either deleted or relocated in a more natural position, before the start of
the direct speech (II.8n.).
kaª tän ëOmrou pän toÓto n m»non katcein . . . tän d llwn mhdn
p©taqai: to claim to know only one line of Homer is to profess a lack of
concern for civilised values. Contrast X. Smp. 3.5 ¾ patr ¾ pimeloÅmeno
Âpw nr gaq¼ geno©mhn ngka me pnta t ëOmrou ph maqe±n.
For katcein ‘master, retain in the mind, know’, Men. Epit. 325–6 teqaai
tragwidoÅ, o²d ì Âti, | kaª taÓta katcei pnta; further illustration in LSJ
ii.9, to which may be added Ariston fr. 14, v (p. 38.8 Wehrli) n©ote oÉdn ti
jwrtai katcwn (the panteidmwn), TrGF 100 Lyc. f 2.5 (G. Xanthakis-
Karamanos, AQHNA 81 (1990–6) 348–9). tän d llwn mhdn p©taqai
is added for rhetorical balance: similarly HP 9.20.5 ¾ ½p¼ m»non crimo,
llo d ì oÉdn, Sens. 20 m»nou gr doke± tän toice©wn toÓ pur¼ por-
re±n, p¼ d tän llwn oÉden», S. OT 62–3 e« n ì rcetai | m»non kaq ì
aËt¼n koÉdn ì llon (cf. 1071 –2), E. Ba. 196 m»noi gr eÔ jronoÓmen, o¬ d ì
467
COMMENTARY
lloi kakä, Pl. Grg. 501 e tn ¡donn ¡män m»non diÛkein, llo d ì oÉdn
jront©zein, R. 592b t gr taÅth m»nh n prxeien, llh d oÉdemi
(cf. Chrm. 174e, Sph. 244d), X. An. 2.2.5 m»no jr»nei o³a de± t¼n rconta,
o¬ d ì lloi peiroi §an (cf. Cyr. 1.4.21), D. 23.162 taÅthn m»nhn ngnwq©
moi tn pitoln, t d ì lla a, 58.38 Ëme± m»noi . . . llo d ì oÉdeª
tän ëEllnwn, Alex. 102.1 –2 ½rce±qai m»non | blponte, llo d ì oÉdn
(cf. 153.6–7).
“OÉk gaq¼n ktl.”: H. Il. 2.204. Theophrastus sides with the numerous
testimonia against gaq, attested by a papyrus and by some mss. of Arist.
Pol. 1292 a 13 and adopted by West. For the neuter adj. as predicate in a gnomic
statement, KG 1.58–9, Schwyzer 2.605–6, Barrett on E. Hi. 443–6, Diggle,
Euripidea 260–1. P continues the quotation with e³ baileÅ (Il. 2.205). It
would be unwise to accept this, when P is paraphrasing so loosely and has the
quotation in the wrong place.
The edd. pr. read the final words of P as pollou [legei pa|relq]wn
rkee[in ena. Rather, pollou [ c. v | c. v ]wn arkee[i(n). The expected
division is not pa|relq]wn (in any case too short for the beginning of the line)
but par|elq]wn (much too short) or | parelq]wn (probably too long). Perhaps
leg]wn (as above, before the direct speech).
3 mlei d dein»: perhaps - d <kaª> dein» (like V.9 - d kaª . . . d-)

or - d dein¼ <ka©> (like XIX.3). mlei d is always followed by ka©, with-
out interval (II.9, V.9, XXI.11, XXIV.12, XXVII.5, XXVIII.4, XXX.13, 18),
except at XIX.3 (cited above), where dein» intervenes. See II.9n., VI.9n.
to± toioÅtoi tän l»gwn craqai Âti: cf. I.6 täi toioÅtwi tr»pwi
toÓ l»gou cr¦qai. Regularly o¬ toioÓtoi tän l»gwn (Isoc. 5.12, al., Arist.
EN 1168b 12, al.; III.4n.). tän ½l©gwn (V) <l»goi> (Steinmetz) is bad. For
Âti, II.8n.
De± aÉtoÆ ¡m unelq»nta perª toÅtwn bouleÅaqai: an allusion
to the propensity of upper-class Athenians to band together in mutual-aid
societies (bibliography in OCD3 ‘hetaireiai’). aÉtoÅ is ‘alone’ (XXII.13n.).
toÅtwn (c) is preferable to toÅtou.
kaª k toÓ Àclou kaª t¦ gor pallag¦nai: cf. Lib. Ep. 340.5 jeÅgwn
t¼n Àclon kaª gorn, Men. fr. 871.3 Àclo gor; X. HG 6.2.23, Arist. Pol.
1319a 36, D.S. 14.79.2, D.Chr. 77.5 gora±o Àclo; Millett, ‘Encounters in
the Agora’ 226–7.
kaª paÅaqai rca± plhizonta: ‘approaching office’, in the sense
‘courting office’ not ‘entering on a career of public office’ (LSJ plhizw ii.1).
There is no exact parallel: not Luc. Anach. 21 peidn . . . plhizwi pr¼
tn polite©an (ad rem publicam accedere, like §4 pr¼ t koin proi»ntwn), nor
e«inai (e« rcn) ‘enter upon office’ (Antipho 6.44, D. 44.68, 59.72, [Arist.]
Ath. 55.5, 56.2). rcaireizonta ‘holding elections’ (Cobet 1874) is clever.
468
kaª Ëp¼ toÅtwn oÌtw Ëbrizomnou £ timwmnou: ‘and thus receiving

from them insult or honour’, according as their election is approved or not at the
preliminary scrutiny (dokima©a) or their handling of office at the concluding
scrutiny (eÎqunai) or during tenure (Hansen, Athenian Democracy 218–24). The
otiose aÉtoÅ (V) should not be deleted (Petersen before Ussing) but changed
to oÌtw (Navarre 1918), which clarifies the thought: that either Ìbri or
tim is a consequence of courting office. The Oligarchic Man would deny the
people the right to dispense these to their betters, scorning alike their censure
and their commendation, for oÉd ì a«ne±n to±i kako±i qmi (Arist. fr. 673.3
Rose, West). Conjectures miss the point: £ < >timwmnou post Schneider
Foss 1858, <kaª> tim- Petersen, [ timwmnou] Hanow 1860, mllon (for
aÉtoÅ) Ëbrizomnou Cobet 1874, Ëbrizomnou <mllon> Diels.
<kaª> Âti “ ð H toÅtou de± £ ¡m o«ke±n tn p»lin”: connective <ka©>
(Hanow 1860 before Ussing) is unavoidable; Âte (Edmonds 1929) does not give
a natural connection here (XVII.9n.). o«ke±n tn p»lin is ‘live in the city’ (as
e.g. Ar. Au. 127, Th. 1.13.5, Isoc. 10.25, D. 23.138, [Arist.] Ath. 22.4; cf. §4
oÉk o«kht»n tin n t¦i p»lei), not ‘govern the city’ (Jebb, al.). Similarly D.
9.11 e²pen Âti de± duo±n qteron, £ ke©nou n ìOlÅnqwi m o«ke±n £ aËt¼n n
Makedon©ai; cf. Pl. R. 551 d (a fault of oligarchy) t¼ m m©an ll dÅo ngkhi
e²nai tn toiaÅthn p»lin, tn mn pentwn, tn d plou©wn, o«koÓnta n
täi aÉtäi, eª pibouleÅonta llloi.
4 kaª t¼ mon d t¦ ¡mra xiÛn: not kat mon (Reiske 1749 (Briefe 362),
1757); X.14n. The spectacle is comic. His formal dress, neat haircut, and careful
manicure are as wasted as his ranting speeches, if he goes out at midday. This
is siesta-time, and the streets will be empty not only of the common people
(whom he wishes to avoid) but also of his friends.
[kaª] t¼ ¬mtion nabeblhmno: ‘dressed in his cloak’ indicates that he
is dressed formally (IV.4n.), and there is no need for a qualifying adverb
(<memelhmnw> na- Edmonds 1929). Connective ka© is out of place, since
xiÛn is temporal, while the participles which follow are descriptive. It was
deleted by Darvaris, before Meier 1850 and Ussing. For other instances of inter-
polated ka©, VII.4n. For the alternative spelling qo«m- (Meineke), XXX.10n.
kaª mhn kourn kekarmno: cut in a style which avoids the implications of
negligence, penury, mourning, or affectation, which are associated with long or
short hair (V.6n., epil. X n.). Cf. Poll. 4.138–40 me»kouro, of a female figure
wearing a tragic mask, distinguished from katkomo and koÅrimo, i.e. ‘with
a medium cut’, not ‘shaven in the middle’ (LSJ); Hsch. M 920 meokourde ·
oÌtw kaloÓi dndra t Ëp¼ nmwn katagnta, kaª kourn <mhn kekar-
mna> (some such supplement is needed).
kaª kribä pwnucimno: XIX.2n. Roman barbers did manicures (Pl.
Aul. 312, Hor. Ep. 1.7.50–1, V. Max. 3.2.15, Mart. 3.74.2–3; F. W. Nicolson,
469
COMMENTARY
HSCPh 2 (1891) 43); Phanias AP 6.307.4 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 3013)

is no guide to Greek practice.
obe±n: this verb (like the adj. obar», for which see Gomme and Sandbach
on Men. Pk. 172) connotes pomposity of manner (‘strut, swagger’ LSJ iii), as
D. 21.158 tre± koloÅqou £ tttara aÉt¼ cwn di t¦ gor obe±,
kumb©a kaª çut kaª jila ½nomzwn oÌtw ãte toÆ pari»nta koÅein,
where MacDowell suggests unconvincingly that ‘used elsewhere of shooing
away birds, this verb is best interpreted here as meaning that Meidias, by means
of his attendant slaves, makes people get out of his way’. It cannot mean that
in our passage, or in Plu. Sol. 27.3 kekomhmnou polutelä kaª oboÓnta
n Àclwi propompän kaª doruj»rwn. The feature which is common to all
three passages is self-display. Cf. also Alciphr. 4.7.1 (of a conceited person) e«
tn ìAkadmeian obe±, 4.11.4 meq ì Âh qerape©a kaª parakeu¦ »bei.
toÆ toioÅtou l»gou tragwidän: cf. D. 18.13 (my alleged crimes)
thlikoÅtoi ¡l©ka nÓn tragÛidei (also 127 ãper n tragwid©ai boänta),
19.189 taÓta . . . tragwide± periÛn, Men. Asp. 329–30 de± tragwid¦ai
pqo | llo±on, Plu. Them. 24.5 untragwid¦ai tn ¬ke©an, Nic. 5.3 ¾
mlita taÓta untragwidän kaª umperitiqeª Àgkon aÉtäi kaª d»xan, Pl.
Ps. 707 ut paratragoedat carnufex!. The noun is similarly used by Hyp. Eux. 26 t
tragwid©a aÉt¦ kaª t kathgor©a (‘her melodramatic accusations’), Lyc.
12 trag]wid©a gr[yai e« t]n e«aggel[©an, Men. Sic. 262–3 tragwid©ai
| ken¦i, Cic. Mil. 18 Appiae nomen quantas tragoedias excitat! (OLD ‘tragoedia’ c).
Cf. H. Zilliacus, ‘Tragwid©a und drma in metaphorischer Bedeutung’, Arctos
2 (1958) 217–20, Wankel on D. 18.13.
The admirable conjecture tragwidän for tn toÓ Ýd©w (V) spares us the
problematic ‘street of the Odeion’ which features in earlier conjectures: tn
toÓ ìWide©ou Preller ap. Foss 1858, <di> tn ktl. Jebb, <kat> tn ktl.
Holland 1897. No such street is known (for the Odeion itself see III.3n.). It
also provides a construction for toÆ toioÅtou l»gou, which, since it can-
not be constructed with obe±n (‘Reden leidenschaftlich hervorstossen’ Ilberg),
must otherwise be changed (to± toioÅtoi l»goi Gale, before Orelli and
Petersen) or supplemented (l»gou <lgwn> Casaubon, <krotän> Dar-
varis, <e«pÛn> or <poihmeno> Meier 1850, <jie©> Foss 1858). Other
conjectures: te©na Þ Hanow 1860, te©nwn Þ Berg, tonqorÅzwn Ribbeck
1870, epa Þ Ilberg. One uncertainty remains: whether, since Þ introduces
the three quotations which follow, tragwidän Þ should be written here (as
Herwerden himself proposed, before Sitzler and Navarre). Cf. §3 to± toioÅ-
toi tän l»gwn . . . Âti; but contrast I.6 täi toÅtwi tr»pwi toÓ l»gou,
without Âti.
“Di toÆ ukojnta oÉk o«kht»n tin n t¦i p»lei”: sycophants
(XXIII.4n.) are bred by democracy, and the rich and oligarchic are their natu-
ral enemies. The first act of the Thirty Tyrants was to round up and execute the
470
sycophants (X. HG 2.3.12, [Arist.] Ath. 35.3). See R. Osborne in P. Cartledge,

P. Millett, S. Todd (edd.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society (Cam-
bridge 1990) 99–102, D. Harvey ibid. 118. o«kht»n is ‘habitable’; earlier only
S. OC 28 (‘inhabited’), 39 qikto oÉd ì o«kht» (both senses perceptible); rare
thereafter. For this flexibility of sense in verbal adjectives in -to, KB 2.288–9,
Schwyzer 1.501 –3, C. D. Buck and W. Petersen, A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns
and Adjectives (Chicago 1945) 469–70. o«khton (c) gives inferior sense.
kaª Þ “ ì En to± dikathr©oi dein pcomen Ëp¼ tän dekazomnwn”:
Þ introducing direct speech (as XXIX.5) is rare, by contrast with Âti (II.8n.).
Goodwin §711 cites only Din. 1.12, 102; E. H. Spieker, AJPh 5 (1884) 224, adds
D. 21.151.
The popular courts are a symbol and bulwark of democracy (MacDowell,
Law 34, Hansen, Athenian Democracy 178–9). The Oligarchic Man assumes that
they are hotbeds of bribery and corruption, to the prejudice of himself and
his like. The ‘Old Oligarch’ complains that n . . . to± dikathr©oi oÉ toÓ
dika©ou aÉto± mllon mlei £ toÓ aËto± umj»rou ([X.] Ath. 1.13). In Men.
Sic. 156 a character is termed ‘oligarchic’ after declaring that truth is best
discovered not by listening to a person who weeps and pleads (presumably in
a public place, such as a court) but n ½l©gwi polläi ge m[llon unedr©wi.
dekzein connotes bribery of jurors (Lys. 29.12, Isoc. 8.50, 18.11, Aeschin.
1.87, [Arist.] Ath. 27.5; undekzein [X.] Ath. 3.7, Aeschin. 1.86, law in
D. 46.26; dkato Arist. EN 1109b 8), a practice said to have been introduced
by Anytos at the end of the 5th cent. (Ath. 27.5 ¢rxato d met taÓta kaª t¼
dekzein, prÛtou katade©xanto ìAnÅtou met tn n PÅlwi trathg©an.
krin»meno gr Ëp» tinwn di t¼ pobale±n PÅlon deka t¼ dikatrion
pjugen). See Rhodes ad loc., MacDowell, Law 36, id. ‘Athenian laws about
bribery’, RIDA 30 (1983) 57–78 (esp. 63–9, 77), Harvey in P. A. Cartledge and
F. D. Harvey (edd.), Crux: Essays presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on his 75th
Birthday (Exeter and London 1985) 88–9, R. K. Sinclair, Democracy and Participa-
tion in Athens (Cambridge 1988) 143, Hansen, Athenian Democracy 197–8. Neither
dikazomnwn ‘litigants’ (V) nor dikaz»ntwn ‘jurors’ (Schneider) is anywhere
near as effective; nor is Ëp¼ tän <kakän> (or <ceir»nwn> or <ponhrän>)
dikaz»menoi (Navarre 1918), though better than dhmotikän (Navarre 1918).
Same corruption (dika- for deka-) [X.] loc. cit., D. loc. cit., Plu. 92d.
kaª Þ “Qaumzw tän pr¼ t koin proi»ntwn t© boÅlontai”: cf.
(pr¼ t koin proinai) D. 18.257, 19.2, Aeschin. 1.165, 3.17, 22, Pl. Ep.
358b, (pª t k-) D. Prooem. 12.1, (to± k-) D. 19.274, [Demad.] 8; also XXIX.5
tän koinän, LSJ koin» a.ii.3, and on §3 rca± plhizonta.
kaª Þ “ ìAcrit»n ti <t¼ pl¦qo kaª mn¦mon> toÓ nmonto kaª
did»nto”: the people are ‘ungrateful’, and ‘unmindful’ of their benefactors;
and yet favours received should be remembered (XXIV.3n.). The adjectives
make a natural pair: Ph. De Ios. 99 (4.82 Cohn-Wendland) p crito
471
COMMENTARY
mnmwn tªn eÉergetän, Plu. Pomp. 20.6 oÉk crito oÉd ì mnmwn . . .
tän perª ikel©an, Epict. 2.23.5 mt ì crito qi mte plin mnmwn
tän krei»nwn, App. BC 3.32 oÉ pnthi t Ka©aro ¾ränte jila oÉd
mnmona oÉd crita, Ael. fr. 101 Hercher (104 Domingo-Forasté) mte
car©tou . . . mte mnmona, Cic. Phil. 2.33 quae . . . tam immemor posteritas,
quae tam ingratae litterae . . .?, Ov. Met. 14.173 ingratus et inpius (u.l. immemor; cf.
10.682 nec grates immemor egit), Sen. Ben. 7.26.2 immemor et ingratus, Plin. Ep. 8.18.3
ingratum immemorem. Cf. Hes. Th. 503 pemnanto crin (same expression
E. Alc. 299, Th. 1.137.2), Pi. I. 7.16–17 ll palai gr eÌdei cri,
mnmone d broto©, S. Ai. 520–3 ll ì ce kmoÓ mn¦tin· ndr© toi
creÜn | mnmhn proe±nai, terpn¼n e t© pou pqoi. | cri crin
gr tin ¡ t©ktou ì e©· | Âtou d ì porre± mn¦ti eÔ peponq»to
ktl., fr. 920 mnmono gr ndr¼ Àllutai cri, Ar. V. 449–51 oÉd ì
namnhqeª ktl. . . . Æ d ì crito §q ì ra, Pax 761 podoÓna©
moi tn crin Ëm e«k¼ kaª mnmona e²nai, Arist. EN 1167 b 27 mn-
mone gr o¬ pollo© (with the preceding context), Aristonous, Paean in Ap.
(Powell, Coll. Alex. 163, W. D. Furley and J. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns 2
(Tübingen 2001) 46) 29–31 crin palain car©twn | tn t»t ì ·d©oi cwn |
mnmai, [Men.] Mon. 12 Jäkel crito Âti eÔ paqÜn mnhmone± (cf. 49
nr crito (u.l. mnmwn) m nomizqw j©lo), Luc. Tim. 51 critoi
n ehmen mnhmonoÓnte.
The adj. crito is applied to the d¦mo by D. 58.63, Aeschin. 3.182,
Lib. Decl. 23.47; cri was the return expected by those who deployed their
wealth for public purposes ( J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 BC
(Oxford 1971) xii, id. Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens (New York
1981) 92–7, Dover, Greek Popular Morality 293, J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Demo-
cratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People (Princeton 1989) 226–47,
Wilson, Khoregia 173, 179, S. Johnstone, Disputes and Democracy: The Consequences of
Litigation in Ancient Athens (Austin 1999) 100–8). Here the ‘distributor and giver’
is someone who makes the kinds of handout referred to in XXIII.5. On the
verb nmein, Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca 198–207; for the pairing nmonto
kaª did»nto, D. 13.1 to± nmoui kaª didoÓi t koin; cf. XXX.4.
There are many alternative supplements: <t¼ pl¦qo toÓ dmou t
rc dia>nmonto Schneider 1799, criton (not -o) <¾ d¦mo (or <t¼
pl¦qo) kaª Þ> ti Coray, <t¼ pl¦qo kaª e©> Ast, c- <t¼ pl¦qo
kaª qerapeutik»n> ti Wachsmuth ap. Ilberg, <t¼ pl¦qo kaª doÓlon e©>
Diels. With the supplements of Coray and Ast the gen. is constructed as in
S. OT 917 tª toÓ lgonto, Ph. 386 p»li gr ti pa tän ¡goumnwn,
X. An. 2.1.11 nom©zei . . . Ëm autoÓ e²nai, Alciphr. 4.11.3 (ta±rai are) eª toÓ
did»nto (KG 1.372–3, Schwyzer 2.122–4). But ‘ungrateful’ and ‘belonging to
the distributor and giver’ are not a happy pair. And ‘attentive to’ (Wachsmuth)
or ‘slaves of’ (Diels) are no happier. A bare <t¼> toÓ (Edmonds 1908, before
472
Bersanetti) gives feeble sense (‘how thankless the task is of the man who has to
pay’).
kaª Þ a«cÅnetai n t¦i kklh©ai Âtan parakaq¦ta© ti aËtäi lept¼
kaª aÉcmän: reversion to indirect speech is unexceptionable (cf. III.3, VII.9),
and there is no call for kaª a«cÅneqai (Sitzler). It is uncertain whether
parakaq¦tai or -kqhtai (V) is the right accentuation (H. W. Chandler, A
Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation (Oxford 2 1881) §813). aËtäi (Edmonds
1908) rather than aÉ- (V); I.2n.
Applied to the human figure, lept» ‘thin’ often has an uncomplimen-
tary sense, ‘skinny’, ‘scrawny’, implying ‘undernourished’: e.g. Ar. Nu. 1018
t¦qo lept»n, Antiph. 120.4 (sophists) leptän ©twn, Ceb. 10.3 ( ìOdurm»
and ìAqum©a) dueid ti kaª lept¼ kaª gumn», kaª met ì aÉtoÓ ti llh
¾mo©a aÉtäi a«cr kaª lept, LSJ i.4 (add Macho 320). aÉcmän ‘dry’ does
not mean ‘squalid, unwashed’ (LSJ, Jebb, al.), ‘struppig’ (Ilberg), ‘ill-kempt’
(Edmonds), but ‘not anointed with oil’, as Ar. Nu. 442, 920, Pl. 84, Anaxandr.
35.6; similarly aÉcmhr» E. Or. 387 (cf. 223), Pl. Smp. 203c. See on V.6 cr©-
mati le©jeqai, Denniston on E. El. 239. Like undernourishment, lack of
oil is attributable to poverty (Ar. Nu. 835–6). The Oligarchic Man, who can
afford to look after his appearance, is ashamed to be seen in the company
of a man who cannot. This is a subtle touch, lost if we change lept» to
nipto or louto (both Meineke). In any case, an unwashed neighbour will
prompt repulsion or nausea, not shame. There are other conjectures, much
worse: lepr» Meier 1850, blenn» Hanow 1861, lit» Bücheler. For the lower
classes in the Ecclesia, IV.2n.
5 kaª e«pe±n “P»te pau»meqa Ëp¼ tän leitourgiän kaª tän trihrarciän
pollÅmenoi;”: good democrats boast of what they have spent on liturgies
(XXIII.6n.), while oligarchs, traditionally avaricious (§1 n.), contribute with
reluctance (Pl. R. 551 e, 554e–555a, [X.] Ath. 1.13, Arist. Pol. 1271 b 13). Com-
plaints are often heard about the ruinous effects of liturgies: e.g. Lys. 29.4,
Isoc. 4.160. 8.128, D. 18.102, 28.17, Antiph. 202.5–7 (Konstantakos 240–3).
See P. Millett in C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, R. Seaford (edd.), Reciprocity in
Ancient Greece (Oxford 1988) 251 –3, M. R. Christ, ‘Liturgy avoidance and Anti-
dosis in classical Athens’, TAPhA 120 (1990) 147–69, esp. 153, P. Wilson in
C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford 1997) 93–6, id. Khoregia
184–7. For p»lluqai of financial ruin, e.g. Ar. Nu. 16, D. 36.51, 45.64, Men.
Epit. 751.
kaª Þ “Miht¼n t¼ tän dhmagwgän gno”: ‘demagogue’ was orig-
inally a word of neutral colour, and whether you praise demagogues (e.g.
Lys. 27.10 gaqän dhmagwgän) or condemn them (e.g. X. HG 5.2.7 tän
barwn dhmagwgän, Isoc. 8.129 gno oÉdn ti kakonoÅteron täi plqei
ponhrän çht»rwn kaª dhmagwgän, Arist. Pol. 1292 a 7–38) may depend upon
473
COMMENTARY
where your political sympathies lie. See M. I. Finley, ‘Athenian Demagogues’,

Past and Present 21 (1962) 3–24 (= Finley (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London
1974) ch. 1, id. Democracy Ancient and Modern (London 2 1985) ch. 2), W. R. Connor,
The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (Princeton 1971) 109–10, Rhodes on
[Arist.] Ath. 26.1, Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia ii (Copenhagen 1989) 14 n. 40,
id. Athenian Democracy 268, Whitehead on Hyp. Dem. 17.
t¼n Qha präton ja tän kakän t¦i p»lei gegonnai ation: ja
must be taken as coincident with the earlier e«pe±n (VII.3n.). Both the separation
and the pleonasm are unwelcome; hence <kaª> t¼n Qha präton j¦ai
(Foss 1835).
It was traditional to praise Theseus for introducing democracy: E. Su. 350–3,
403–8, 429–41, Isoc. 10.36, 12.128–9, D. 59.75, 60.28, Marm.Par. FGrH 239
a 20, Plu. Thes. 24.2, 25.1 –3, Paus. 1.3.3; Jacoby on Philoch. FGrH 328 f
19, H. Herter, ‘Theseus’, RE Suppl. xiii (1973) 1215–18 (§128), J. N. Davie,
‘Theseus the King in fifth-century Athens’, G&R 29 (1982) 25–34, H. J. Walker,
Theseus and Athens (New York and Oxford 1995) ch. 5. The Oligarchic Man
subverts tradition by blaming him for introducing demagogues, a by-product
of democracy.
toÓton gr k dÛdeka p»lewn e« m©an † katagag»nta luqe©a
baile©a† : for the synoecism of Attica under Theseus, Th. 2.15.2, Philoch.
FGrH 328 f 94 ap. Str. 9.1.20, Isoc. 10.35, D. 59.75, Marm.Par. FGrH 239 a 20,
D.S. 4.61.8, Plu. Thes. 24.1 –3; Herter (above) 1212–13 (§125), M. Moggi,
I Sinecismi Interstatali Greci, 1 : Dalle Origini al 338 a.C. (Pisa 1976) 44–81, P. J.
Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 2 1993) 74,
Walker (above) 195–6. The language is particularly close to Str. loc. cit. (para-
phrasing Philoch.) e« m©an p»lin unagage±n lgetai tn nÓn t dÛdeka
QheÅ. For e« m©an (p»lin) cf. also Th. 2.15.2 ngkae mii p»lei taÅthi
cr¦qai, Plu. Thes. 24.1 unÛikie toÆ tn ìAttikn katoikoÓnta e« n
tu, kaª mi p»lew na d¦mon pjhne.
Instead of katagag»nta we expect unagag»nta (Cobet 1874), as in Str. loc.
cit., Isoc. 10.35 tn p»lin . . . e« taÉt¼n unagagÛn, Suda Q 368 ungage
tn ìAttikn, Callisthenes FGrH 124 f 25 ap. Str. 13.1.59 t x MaÅwlo
e« m©an . . . ungagen (many more instances in Moggi 388 s.u. ungw); less
likely metagag»nta (D.S. 4.61.8 toÆ dmou . . . metagage±n e« t ìAqna).
Perhaps kata- has been displaced from the following verb, since we expect the
compound katalu-, if the object is to be a noun like ‘kingship’ (LSJ i.2a).
Something similar has happened in II.10 prop©ptwn (A1 s B: diap©ptwn A)
diayiqur©zein (A: yiqur©zein B). The part. needs an object (we cannot under-
stand tn p»lin, with Jebb), and so there is probably a lacuna before or after
it: k- <t¼n d¦mon> or <toÆ dmou> Schneider, <toÆ pol©ta> Bloch,
<t plqh> Foss 1835 before Ussing (an easy omission in the sequence -ta
<t plqh> luqei-; alternatively -agage±n t <plqh> luq- Steinmetz),
474
<pnta> Berg. More extensive supplements: <toÆ dmou ½clokrat©an

katat¦ai> Wendland, <t¼n d¦mon aÉx¦ai, ãte pntwn krat¦ai toÆ
polloÆ> Diels. An oligarch will naturally disapprove of synoecism, because
it leads to democracy, and will prefer the opposite policy, practised by oligarchic
states like Sparta: Plb. 4.27.6 (treatment of Mantineans in early 4th cent.) k
mi p»lew e« ple©ou aÉtoÆ dioik©ante.
In what follows, the Oligarchic Man might have said, tendentiously, that
Theseus, as a result of synoecism, put an end to kingship, even though king-
ship was generally regarded as having survived him ([D.] (Apollod.) 59.75,
[Arist.] Ath. in Epit. Heracl. 1 (printed at the end of the OCT), Plu. Thes. 35.7–8,
Paus. 1.3.3; cf. Rhodes, Commentary 77–8). Hence lÓai baile©an Goez, lÓai
(katalÓai Cobet 1874) tn baile©an Coray, Schneider, < . . . je±nai
tn kata>luqe±an baile©an Foss 1858, luqe©h baile©a Petersen before
Wendland, luqe©h <t¦> baile©a Diels.
What Theseus did put an end to by synoecism was independent local author-
ities (Th. 2.15.2 katalÅa tän llwn p»lewn t te bouleutria kaª t
rc). Plutarch describes the leaders of these as ‘kings’. While absent from
Athens Theseus was ousted by Menestheus, who rallied nobles and commons
against him, fomenting the resentment of both at the suppression of the ‘kings’:
Plu. Thes. 32.1 –2 toÅ te dunatoÆ un©th kaª parÛxune, plai barunom-
nou t¼n Qha kaª nom©zonta rcn kaª baile©an jhirhmnon ktou
tän kat d¦mon eÉpatridän e« n tu une©rxanta pnta Ëphk»oi
cr¦qai kaª doÅloi, toÅ te polloÆ dietratte kaª diballen, Þ Ànar
leuqer©a ¾ränta, rgwi d ì peterhmnou patr©dwn kaª ¬erän, Âpw
ntª pollän kaª gaqän kaª gnh©wn bailwn pr¼ na dep»thn phlun
kaª xnon poblpwi. So perhaps katalÓai t baile©a (lÓai t
b- Kayser before Ilberg, paÓai t b- Ussing, luqeiän tän baileiän
Berg, katagage±n t luqe©a baile©a Torraca 1994a). -luai ta for
-luqeia is anagrammatism, with confusion of t and q (as II.10, XXX.2
t-/q-).
Deletion of toÓton . . . baile©a (Edmonds 1910) has the merit of keeping
the focus entirely on the demagogues, without the slight distraction of synoe-
cism and the ending of ‘kingships’; but the mention of these is not irrelevant,
and there was no obvious motive for interpolation.
kaª d©kaia aÉt¼n paqe±n· präton gr aÉt¼n polqai Ëp ì aÉtän:
Theseus was hoist with his own petard, and deserved his fate (d©kaia . . .
paqe±n), for he created the demagogues and he was their first victim. Cf. Plu.
Thes. 32.1 (Menestheus) präto ã jain nqrÛpwn piqmeno täi dhmag-
wge±n kaª pr¼ crin Àclwi dialgeqai, 35.5 (Theseus) katedhmagwge±to.
Failing to regain control from Menestheus, Theseus sailed to Scyros, where
he was killed by the ruler Lycomedes ([Arist.] Ath. (= Epit. Heracl. 1, S E. Hi.
11 (fr. 4 Kenyon)), Plu. Thes. 34.5–6, Paus. 1.17.5–6; cf. D.S. 4.62.4, Apollod.
475
COMMENTARY
Epit. 1.24, Ael. VH 4.5). See Herter (above) 1197–1200 (§114), Rhodes,
Commentary 76–7. Elsewhere, T. described Theseus as the first victim of
ostracism: fr. 131 Wimmer (638 Fortenbaugh) ap. Paus.Gr. fr. 78 Schwabe,
159 Erbse (Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexica (Berlin 1950) 165–6) = Suda
A 4101 ½trakiq¦nai . . . präton ìAqnhi Qha ¬tore± Qe»jrato n
to± Pr¼ toÆ kairoÅ (Cobet: prÛtoi kairo± codd.);117 cf. Q 368. The
language used here is compatible with that version. See Jacoby on Philoch. f 19
(pp. 311 –12), R. Thomsen, The Origin of Ostracism: A Synthesis (Copenhagen 1972)
13–15, A. J. Podlecki in Fortenbaugh et al. (1985) 236–8.
Repeated aÉt»n is inelegant. If either instance is to be deleted, better the
latter (Navarre 1920) than the former (Herwerden before Cobet 1874, but
already tacitly omitted by Siebenkees). aÉtän refers to dhmagwgän, unless it
refers to something lost in a preceding lacuna. It needs a more specific point of
reference than ‘the population of the dÛdeka p»lei’ (Jebb). And a reference
to d¦moi or plqh, if either of these was lost in the lacuna, is less apt than a
reference to demagogues. No need for Ëp¼ toÅtwn (Herwerden).
[6] Epilogue
The xnoi are foreign visitors (III.3n., V.4, XXIII.2), not ‘friends’ (Ussher;
followed by Whitehead, cited on III.3). That he harangues only foreign visitors
and fellow oligarchs suggests that he is a man of mere words, who does not have
the courage to harangue political opponents. This might have made a neat
and pointed conclusion (Pasquali (1919) 4 = (1986) 72), were it not at variance
with §2, where he boldly airs his radical views in the Ecclesia. The lack of a
governing verb (lgein add. Casaubon) is anomalous. Diels condemned the
sentence as an excerptor’s abridgement. More likely it is a wholesale addition.
See on XIX.4 [kaª t toiaÓta].
toiaÓta tera: cf. VII.3 tra . . . toiaÅta, II.3n.
taÉt proairoumnou: i.e. tn aÉtn proa©rein conta (§1 n).
[Addendum: From the re-edition of P. Oxy. 699 (see above, p. 50) add (on
§2, p. 465) «di[zei m»]|n. o. n Guida, toiouto©á di[gei m»]|n. o. n Stein; (on §2,
p. 468) pari]Ûn Guida (plausible).]
117 Cobet’s conjecture (Collectanea Critica (Leiden 1878) 164), which is unknown to the
editors of Paus.Gr. and Suda and to Fortenbaugh et al., Sources 2 (1992) 484–5 (who
translate n to± prÛtoi kairo± as ‘In the first (book of) Crises’, impossibly), restores
a proper style of reference to the work called sometimes Politik pr¼ toÆ kairoÅ
(589 4a Fortenbaugh), sometimes Pr¼ toÆ kairoÅ (Fortenbaugh 589 4b). For the
prefixed article in to± Pr¼ ktl. cf. 594 Fortenbaugh t Pr[¼] toÆ kairoÅ, 625
n a é tän Pr¼ ktl.
476
XXVII
T H E L AT E L E A R N E R
Introductory note
ìOyimaq is at first used literally: Pl. Sph. 251 b tän ger»ntwn to± ½yimaqi,
Isoc. 10.2 t© tin oÌtw ½yimaq Âti oÉk o²de . . . ; , with objective gen., Pl.
R. 409b ½yimaq¦ . . . t¦ dik©a, X. Cyr. 1.6.35, 3.3.37, Isoc. 12.96. Although
the literal use continues (Plu. Cat.Ma. 2.5 paide©a ëEllhnik¦ ½yimaq), the
word acquires a pejorative tone. A late learner is apt to overvalue his learning
and show it off: Cic. Fam. 9.20.2 ½yimaqe± . . . homines scis quam insolentes sint,
Gel. 11.7.3 est adeo id uitium plerumque serae eruditionis, quam Graeci ½yimaq©an appel-
lant, ut quod numquam didiceris, diu ignoraueris, cum id scire aliquando coeperis, magni
facias quo in loco cumque et quacumque in re dicere. And so ½yimaq©a comes to be
associated with ostentation and pedantry: Plu. 334c Ëp ì ½yimaq©a autoÓ
mikr»tero kaª neopreptero, 634c tn ½yimaq©an ma kaª perierg©an,
744c toÅtou lgein p»deixin ½yimaq ti kaª groikon, Luc. Salt. 33 tn
perª taÓta jilotim©an peir»kal»n te kaª ½yimaq¦ kaª mautäi kairon.
Timaeus described Aristotle as ojit ½yimaq (Plb. 12.8.4 = Timae. FGrH
566 f 156), an insult which both Polybius and Plutarch directed back at Timaeus
(Plb. 12.4c.1 = 566 t 19 oÉ m»non peir©an, ti d mllon ½yimaq©an doke±
moi polln pija©nein (‘pedantic irrelevance’ Walbank), Plu. Nic. 1.1 = 566 t
18 ½yimaq kaª meirakiÛdh). In a similar spirit, Hor. S. 1.10.21 (of unsophis-
ticated critics) o seri studiorum. For the contrary notion, that it is never too late
to learn, Socrates ap. S.E. M. 6.13 kre±tt»n tin ½yimaq¦ mllon £ maq¦
diablleqai, Radt on A. fr. 396, Powell on Cic. Sen. 26.
The ìOyimaq pursues activities for which he is too old. Although he learns
speeches, drill, and songs (§2, §3, §7), learning is only a minor theme, and, for
the most part, we see an elderly man acting like a youth. He is raw recruit (§3),
athlete (§4), ephebe (§5), gymnast (§6), exclusus amator (§9), playful child (§12).
He is vain, conceited, and an exhibitionist (§8, §13, §14, §15). Occasionally his
failure or humiliation are spelled out (§2, §9, §10). But, in the main, we are
invited to smile at the simple incongruity of his antics: a man who does not
act his age and has not learned the precept grwn ggona · m ztei t toÓ
nou (Teles p. 10.6 Hense2 ap. Stob. 3.1.98).
[1 ] Definition
The ìOyimaq is correctly identified as a man whose exertions are inappro-
priate to his years. We ought to be less surprised by the use of jilopon©a than
by the misuse of Ëpr tn ¡lik©an.
477
COMMENTARY
jilopon©a . . . Ëpr tn ¡lik©an: many of the man’s activities entail physical
exertion. But jilopon©a is applicable to exertion which is non-physical too:
Isoc. 1.45–6 t¦i perª tn llhn paide©an jilopon©ai . . . perª tn retn
jilopone±n, Plb. 12.28.8 = Timae. FGrH 566 f 7 me©zono de±tai jÅew
kaª jilopon©a kaª parakeu¦ t¼ tän pideiktikän l»gwn gno £ t¼ t¦
¬tor©a, D.S. 16.2.3 mjotrwn . . . tän maqhtän proenegkamnwn jÅin te
kaª jilopon©an, 26.1.3 tn e« t jaÓla jilopon©an, [Pl.] Def. 412c jilopon©a
xi poteletik oÕ n prolhtai (Ingenkamp 44). This being so, Stein’s
suggestion that the use of the word was prompted by Arist. Rh. 1361 b 7–14
(the different p»noi which relate to youth, maturity, old age) is uncompelling.
There is no need for jilopon©a <perª paide©an> (Navarre 1918), based on
Isoc. 1.45 (above).
Elsewhere Ëpr tn ¡lik©an means ‘beyond one’s years’ and is applied to
youthful precociousness: Men. Dysc. 28 ¾ pa± Ëpr tn ¡lik©an t¼n noÓn
cwn, D. 54.1, Plb. 4.82.1, D.S. 4.9.6, 9.22, 17.38.2, D.C. 53.5.2. Here it means
‘beyond (what is appropriate to) one’s years’. Perhaps Ëpr is a slip (by writer
or scribe) for par, ‘contrary to one’s age’ (LSJ par c.iii.4), which may be old
(Lys. 3.4 par tn ¡lik©an tn mautoÓ noht»teron pr¼ t¼ meirkion
diateqe©, Nicol.Com. 1.34, Plu. Rom. 25.6, Fab. 12.5) or unspecified ([And.]
4.39, Arist. Rh. 1365 a 22, [Men.] Sent. 574 Jäkel) or young (Arist. HA 575 b 32,
Plu. Sol. 20.7, Them. 2.3; cf. Pi. O. 4.31 par t¼n lik©a oik»ta cr»non). The
suggestion that these words are echoed by Luc. Merc.Cond. 23 ½yimaqa . . .
kaª p»rrw pou t¦ ¡lik©a paideu»meno is refuted by Stein. See the Intro-
duction, p. 26.
d»xeien n e²nai: def. I n.
2 çei manqnein xkonta th gegonÛ: no need for kmanqnein

(Herwerden), as §7, Pl. Lg. 811 a (contrast X. Smp. 3.5 pnta t ëOmrou
ph maqe±n). xkonta th g- (c) restores the normal construction (LSJ to
1, g©gnomai i.1, KG 1.314, Schwyzer 2.70); xhkontath (V) is abnormal in
form, since Attic spells -toÅth (KB 1.544 Anmerk. 7, Schwyzer 1.593), and
gives an abnormal construction.
kaª taÅta lgwn par p»ton pilanqneqai: for resumptive taÅta
see on I.2 kaª toÅtoi; for lgwn, and recitation at the symposium, XV.10n.
For par p»ton, X. Smp. 8.41, An. 2.3.15, Aeschin. 2.156, Antiph. 122.2,
Epicr. 5.2, Macho 105, 175, 366, 377, Plb. 23.5.11, etc.; par tn p»in Hdt.
2.121 d.5, par ì o²non Hedyl. ap. Ath. 473a (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams
1853), par . . . Br»mion E. Herc. 682 (LSJ par c.i.10.d, KG 1.513); cf. XX.10
pª toÓ pothr©ou.
3 kaª par toÓ ËoÓ manqnein t¼ “ ì Epª d»ru” kaª “ ì Ep ì p©da” kaª “ ì Ep ì
oÉrn”: for the spelling ËoÓ, IX.5n. For t» introducing quoted words, LSJ
478
XXVII: THE LATE LEARNER
¾ b.i.5, KG 1.596 (7). These are the typical commands of the drill-sergeant
(¾plomco, V.10n.). Cf. Poll. 1.129 pª mtwpon kl±nai kaª p ì oÉrn kaª
p ì p©da kaª pª d»ru. Spear-side and shield-side are right and left: X.
An. 4.3.29 natryanta pª d»ru, Cyr. 7.5.6 meteblonto p ì p©da, Plb.
3.115.9 o¬ mn . . . kl©nante p ì p©da . . . o¬ d . . . pª d»ru poioÅmenoi tn
kl©in (LSJ d»ru ii.1 a, p© i.3). oÉr is used of an army’s ‘rear’, e.g. X. HG
4.3.4 parapmpei p ì oÉrn kaª t¼ p¼ toÓ t»mato ¬ppik»n (cf. Ages. 2.2,
LSJ ii.1). For absence of article see KG 1.605 (f), IV.2n.
4 kaª e« ¡räia umblleqai to± meirak©oi lampda trcwn: ritual torch-
races for ephebes, normally relays, in which fire was carried from one altar to
another, were held at the Panathenaea, the Hephaestia, and the Promethia;
also at festivals for Pan, Bendis, and Nemesis of Rhamnus. See Frazer on Paus.
1.30.2, Jüthner, ‘Lampadhdrom©a’, RE xii.1 (1925) 569–77, L. Deubner, Attische
Feste (Berlin 1932) 211 –13, 219–20, O. W. Reinmuth, The Ephebic Inscriptions of
the Fourth Century BC (Leiden 1971) 18, H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians
(London 1977) 45–6, 150–1, 171 –3, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 57.1, E. Simon,
Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary (Madison 1983) 53–4, D. G. Kyle,
Athletics in Ancient Athens (Leiden 1987) 190–3, N. V. Sekunda, ZPE 83 (1990)
153–8, R. Osborne, ‘Competitive Festivals and the Polis: a context for dramatic
festivals at Athens’, in A. H. Sommerstein et al. (edd.), Tragedy, Comedy and the
Polis (Bari 1993) 21 –37 (esp. 22–7), Parker, Athenian Religion 164, 171 –2, 254,
Wilson, Khoregia 35–6. Later we hear of torch-races run by ephebes at two
hero-festivals: for Theseus (IG ii2 956 (161 /0 bc) 6, 1030 (i bc) 9) and Ajax
(SEG 15 (1958) no. 104 (127/6 bc) 21 –3, IG ii2 1011 (106/5 bc) 53–4); Deubner
224–6, 228, C. Pélékidis, Histoire de l’éphébie attique (Paris 1962) 229–35, 247–9,
Parke 81 –2, Kyle 40–1. The general term ‘hero-festivals’ probably embraces
these two, and perhaps unknown others. The festival of Theseus, and perhaps
that of Ajax too, was instituted in the fifth century (Osborne 22, 25, 27), and
they may have had torch-races from the first. The ¡räia of IG ii2 974.12 (SIG3
687) + SEG 18 (1962) no. 26 (138/7 bc), which Lane Fox 143 identifies with
our ¡räia, are in honour of Asclepius (Deubner 228, R. O. Hubbe, Hesperia
28 (1959) 191 n. 57) and have nothing to do with torch-races and ephebes.
The expression e« ¡räia ‘for the hero-festivals’ is like Lys. 21.3 gum-
niarcoun e« Promqeia, Is. 5.36 e« DionÅia corhga (cf. 7.36), [X.]
Ath. 3.4 corhgo± diadikai e« DionÅia kaª Qarglia kaª Panaqnaia
kaª Promqia kaª ë Hja©tia (KG 1.470; cf. XV.5n.). In the context of a relay-
race, umblleqai will not be ‘match himself against’ (Jebb, al.) but ‘make a
contribution to’ (Bechert), i.e. ‘join the team of’. For this sense and this con-
struction (absolute with personal subject) cf. D. 21.133 umbaloumnou to±
ummcoi (‘supporting their allies’ MacDowell), LSJ i.9. But umblleqai
cannot be followed by infin. trcein (V), which would have to be taken as
479
COMMENTARY
final-consecutive, with the young men, not himself, as subject (XVI.6n., Stein
253 n. 1); and ‘he contributes to the young men for them to run’ is nonsense.
The solution is not <kaª> lampda trcein (Ast), commended by Stein, its
feebleness exposed by Rusten’s translation (‘contributes to the boys, and runs
in the relay races’). The appropriate continuation is part. trcwn, which, at
the end of the sentence, complements the leading verb much in the way that
kmanqnwn does in §7. For the part. with this verb, A. Ch. 1012–13 xumbl-
letai . . . jqe©roua ‘contributes in destroying’ (misinterpreted by LSJ i.9).
The alternative is umball»meno (Navarre 1920), a rougher change.
The term meirkion is less specific than jhbo (V.7), and covers any age
between boyhood and manhood: X. Smp. 4.17 pa± . . . kaª meirkion kaª nr
kaª prebÅth, Men. fr. 494 pa± ggon ì , jhbo, meirkion, nr, grwn,
Gomme and Sandbach on Men. Dysc. 27, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 42.2. Jebb’s
notion that the Late Learner chooses to compete with young boys rather than
ephebes is ill-founded. Whoever his teammates may be, this is an activity which
exposes the unfit to ridicule (Ar. Ra. 1089–98). For lampda trcwn (lampda
internal acc., connoting the race itself), Ar. V. 1203–4 lampda | drame, LSJ
lamp ii.1, trcw ii.2 (add SEG 15 (1958) no. 104 (127/6 bc) 13–14, 23, IG ii2
1011 (107/6 bc) 9).
5 mlei d k(a©): II.9n., VI.9n., XXVI.3n.

n pou klhq¦i e« ë Hrkleion: an invitation to a sacrifice at a shrine of
Heracles (S. Woodford, ‘Cults of Heracles in Attica’, in D. G. Mitten et al.
(edd.), Studies presented to George M. A. Hanfmann (Mainz 1971) 211 –25), per-
haps from a private religious association dining there in his name (Wyse on
Is. 9.30, W. S. Ferguson, HThR 3 (1944) 70 n. 12, Parker, Athenian Religion
333–4).
ç©ya t¼ ¬mtion: cf. Lys. 3.12, 35, Pl. R. 474a, Longus 4.22.1 ; LSJ ç©ptw
iv. For the alternative spelling qo«m- (Meineke), XXX.10n.
t¼n boÓn areqai: by the second century, lifting the bull over the altar had
become a ritualised demonstration of strength by ephebes at state festivals:
IG ii2 1006 (123/2 bc) 9–10 ¢ranto d kaª toÆ boÆ to[Æ] n ì Eleu±ni t¦i
qu©ai kaª to± Prohro©oi kaª toÆ n to± lloi ¬ero± kaª gumna©oi,
78–9; 1008 (119/8 bc) 8–9; 1011 (107/6 bc) 8; 1028 (SIG 3 717) 10–11, 13, 28
(100/99 bc); 1029 (95/4 bc) 9, 16–17; SEG 15 (1958) no. 104 (127/6 bc) 11 –
12. Already in the fifth century we hear of 200 Athenians selected by the
priests to perform this feat: IG i3 82 (421 /0 bc) 29–30 o¯tin[e] d rwntai
.[pndrw aÉtoÅ, o¬] ¬eropoio[ª a¬re©qwn] diako©ou x ìAqh[n]a©wn. See
Parke (§4n.) 51 –2, 172, F. Graf, MH 36 (1979) 14–15, F. T. van Straten, Hierà Kalá:
Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden etc. 1995) 108–13,
Parker, Athenian Religion 254 n. 127, A. Henrichs in F. Graf (ed.), Ansichten griechis-
cher Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998)
480
62–3. Still earlier, a sixth-century Attic black figure amphora shows seven
bearded men (i.e. not ephebes) lifting a bull on their shoulders, while another
cuts its throat (van Straten 111 with Fig. 115, N. Himmelmann, Tieropfer in der
griechischen Kunst (Opladen 1997) 22–4, with Abb. 13). Literary references to the
custom: E. El. 813 (Denniston is corrected by van Straten 109–10), Hel. 1561 –2
(rightly Kannicht), Aristocl. ap. Ael. NA 11.4 (FGrH 436 f 2 = Page, Further
Greek Epigrams 104, Lloyd-Jones and Parsons, SH 206.4) taÓron Án oÉk arou ì
nre oÉd dka (for the reading, Henrichs 63 n. 108). a¬re±qai (V) was cor-
rected to areqai by Meier 1850, before Bergk (Poetae Lyrici Graeci (Leipzig
3
1866) 518, on Thgn. 501).
¯na trachl©hi: he proposes to put a neck-lock on the victim (not ‘cut its
throat’, van Straten 110 n. 27), then presumably pull back the head and expose
the throat for the sacrificial knife (Woodford 212–13). This is wrestling termi-
nology, for comic effect: Plu. 521 b t¼n qlhtn Ëp¼ paidikar©ou trachliz»-
menon, Ant. 33.7 dialambnwn toÆ nean©kou traclizen,118 Suda T 921
Kle»trato ë R»dio plhn niki· Á trachl©zwn pelmbane (‘choked’);
LSJ ii.1 and trachlim», M. B. Poliakoff, Combat Sports in the Ancient World
(New Haven 1987) 34. Heracles wrestled with a lion and a bull. The lion, at
least, he often put in a neck-lock (LIMC v.1 (1990) 16–34).
6 kaª proanatr©beqai e«iÜn e« t pala©tra: ‘rub up against’, in

wrestling, i.e. get a close grip, as Pl. Tht. 169c, Plu. 751 f. His fault is
over-exertion rather than over-familiarity (V.7n.). It is unwise to add a dat.
(pala©tra <to± nean©ai> Foss 1835, kaª <to± paidotr©bai> Meier
1850), since Pl. and Plu. use the verb absolutely. Cf. VII.5.
7 kaª n to± qaÅmai tr©a £ tttara plhrÛmata Ëpomnein t imata

kmanqnwn: for qaÅmai, VI.4n. This use of plhrÛmata for (apparently)
‘fillings’ of the auditorium, i.e. performances, is not recognised by LSJ. It
corresponds to the use of plhr»w ‘fill’, e.g. a court, the Ecclesia (LSJ iii.4, 7).
8 kaª teloÅmeno täi abaz©wi peÓai Âpw kalliteÅhi par täi ¬ere±:
on Sabazios, XVI.4n. For initiation into his rites and the processions of his
q©aoi, D. 18.259–60, Parker, Athenian Religion 194; for teloÅmeno, XVI.12n.
‘He is eager to be the most handsome in the eyes of the priest’, rather than
‘acquit himself best’ ( Jebb). Initiation is an excuse for dressing up, and the Late
Learner, who is vain, tries to look younger than his years. A male beauty-contest
118 ‘He would take the young combatants by the neck and part them’ (B. Perrin, Loeb
ed.), not ‘Grabbing the youths by their waists he would twist their necks’ (C. B. R.
Pelling (Cambridge 1988) ad loc.; similarly M. Poliakoff, Studies in the Terminology of
Greek Combat Sports (Meisenheim 1982) 50–1). For that you need two hands, and he
has only one free, since his other holds the gymnasiarch’s çbdoi.
481
COMMENTARY
at Elis, connected with a temple of Athena (fr. 111 Wimmer, 563 Fortenbaugh,
ap. Ath. 609f), adduced by Bechert and Ussher, can have no possible relevance
here. kalliteÅei (Schneider) could be right (X.14n.); but the subjunctive
is unexceptionable (XXI.11 n.). For par ‘in the judgement of’, LSJ b.ii.3,
KG 1.511.
9 The elderly lover is a regular object of mockery (Men. fr. 400 oÉk n gnoit ì
ränto qliÛteron | oÉqn gronto, Pherecr. 77, McKeown on Ov. Am.
1.9.4). The Late Learner is more than an elderly lover. He apes the excesses of
the young man in love. He is the exclusus amator who batters down a hetaira’s
door (Headlam on Herod. 2.34–7). And then he comes to blows with a rival.
Brawling over hetairai is natural in the young (D. 54.14 t¼n Ë¼n . . . pol-
lki perª ta©ra kaª e«lhjnai kaª dedwknai plhg, kaª taÓt ì e²nai nwn
nqrÛpwn; cf. Lys. 3.43, 4.19, Is. 3.13, [D.] (Apollod.) 59.48). The old should
not brawl (Lys. 24.16–17, D. 54.21 –2). Cf. Dover, Greek Popular Morality 103.
For comment on the literary qualities of this sentence see the Introduction,
pp. 22–3.
kaª rän ta©ra: cf. Alex. 281.4, Men. Dysc. 59. For the corruption (¬er
V, prompted by preceding ¬ere±) see on V.9 palaitr©dion.
kaª kri¼ probllwn ta± qÅrai: cf. Aristopho 5.5 probale±n (Grotius:
-bdhn A, -ba©nein CE) pr¼ o«k©an de±, kri» (‘an attack on a house is needed –
I am a kri»’), with (as here) a play on ‘ram’ and ‘battering-ram’ (LSJ i.2). Same
image, Ar. Lys. 309 (oÎkoun n . . .) e« tn qÅran krihd¼n mpoimen;, Pl. Capt.
796–7 nam meumst ballista pugnum, cubitus catapultast mihi, | umerus aries, Truc. 256
quis illic est qui tam proterue nostras aedis arietat?
‘A ram assaulting the door’ is a form of brachylogy, identification rather
than comparison, which is characteristic of comedy and proverbial speech:
P. Shorey, CPh 4 (1909) 433–6, Headlam-Knox on Herod. 6.14, E. Fraenkel,
Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) 51 –2 = Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence
1960) 47–8, R. Kassel, RhM 116 (1973) 109–12 = Kleine Schriften (Berlin and New
York 1991) 388–91, Mastronarde on E. Ph. 1122, Diggle, CQ 47 (1997) 102–3.
Animals are the commonest identification: Alcm. PMG 1.59, 87, Thgn. 347,
1249, A. fr. 207, [A.] PV 857, S. OT 478, OC 1081, E. Rh. 57, Hdt. 4.149.1, Ar. Lys.
231, 695, Pl. 295, Cratin. 56, 96, 135, 247, Eup. 279, Theopomp.Com. 41.3,
Cephisod. 1, Diod.Com. 6, Men. Dysc. 550, Alex. 258, Philem. 158, Theoc.
14.51, Herod. 6.14, Call. AP 12.149.3 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 1089), Mel.
AP 12.92.3 (Hellenistic Epigrams 4622), Luc. 22.11, 31.4.
kri», an admirable conjecture, restores a vigorous idiomatic locution.
krioÆ (V) probllwn ‘applying battering rams’ shifts the focus from the
man to the implements which he is using. These are traditionally axes (Theoc.
2.128, Pl. Bac. 1119), pickaxes and shovels (Ath. 585a), and crowbars (H. Carm.
3.26.7). To call these ‘battering rams’ is much less natural and effective than
482
to call the man himself a ‘(battering) ram’. Herwerden’s further change of ka©
to kklhiqe© was rash. If ka© is objectionable, it should be deleted (VII.4n.).
But ‘in love and battering . . .’ is probably acceptable.
plhg e«lhjÜ Ëp ì nteratoÓ dikzeqai: for plhg e«lhjÛ,
XII.12n. For d©kh as the outcome, Epich. 146.3–5 k d p»io kämo, k
kÛmou d ì gneq ì Ëan©a, | k d ì Ëan©a d©ka <-ù k d©ka d katad©ka>, | k d
katad©ka pdai te kaª jal¼ kaª zam©a.
10 kaª e« gr¼n jì ¯ppou llotr©ou ½coÅmeno ma meletn ¬ppzeqai kaª
peÜn tn kejaln katag¦nai: while riding on a borrowed horse (he has no
horse of his own and is therefore unused to riding), he ‘practises horsemanship’.
½coÅmeno suggests passive conveyance, and an inexpert rider does well to be
carried passively. But ¬ppzeqai suggests active management of the horse,
a manly skill, like the use of bow and javelin (Hdt. 4.114.3 toxeÅomn te kaª
kont©zomen kaª ¬ppaz»meqa, rga d gunaikia oÉk mqomen; cf. X. Oec.
11.17). For the picture in general, Ar. V. 1427–9 nr ubar©th xpeen x
rmato | ka© pw kategh t¦ kejal¦ mga jodra· | tÅgcanen gr oÉ
tr©bwn àn ¬ppik¦, And. 1.61 pª pwl©on Â moi §n nab peon kaª tn
kle±n unetr©bhn kaª tn kejaln kateghn.
The compound katocoÅmeno (V), not elsewhere attested, is inept, since
‘ride down’ implies a journey from the country, not into it (see on IV.13
kataba©nwn). Perhaps kat- is a premature echo of katag¦nai (see on IV.13
periÛn). At all events, the simple verb is preferable to poc- (Navarre 1920),
which is better suited by dat. ¯ppwi (H. Il. 10.330, 17.448–9) than j ì ¯ppou.
There is no need for t¦ kejal¦ (J. Clericus, Ars Critica (Amsterdam 4 1712)
2.101, before Meineke), gen. as Ar. V. 1428 (above), Ach. 1167 (acc. u.l.), 1180,
Eup. 348, Pl. Grg. 469d (KG 1.345); acc. is supported by And. 1.61 (above),
Lys. 3.14, 40, D. 54.35 (KG 1.316). kateagnai (V), an inappropriate perfect,
must be replaced by katag¦nai (J. Palmerius, Exercitationes in optimos fere Auctores
Graecos . . . et in antiquos Poetas (Leiden 1668) 621, before Edmonds 1929), cor-
rupted by way of the common misspelling kateag¦nai (LSJ init., KB 2.345–6).
See also E. Dettori, ‘Naug-/nauhg-, una iscrizione e alcune forme di gn-
umi’, AION (filol) 19 (1997) 279–317. For the position of ma, XIX.5n. No need
for ma meletän . . . katapeÛn (Stark).
11 kaª n dekadita± ungein toÆ meq ì aËtoÓ † unaÅxonta† : the

dekadita© are members of a dining-club (attested in IG ii2 2701 (SIG 3 1196)
8, c. 300 bc; IG xi 1227, Delos iii–ii bc), named from the day of the month
on which they met, like tetradita© (Alex. 260.1, Ath. 659d citing Men. Kol.
fr. 1 Koerte, Sandbach, Hsch. T 614), e«kadita© (Ath. 298d), noumhniata©
(Lys. fr. 53.2 Thalheim), and bdoma·ta© (4th-cent. inscr., E. Voutiras, AJA
86 (1982) 229–33). See F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig
483
COMMENTARY
1909) 64, 253, G. M. Calhoun, Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation (Austin
1913) 32, Arnott on Alex. loc. cit., Parker, Athenian Religion 335–6, N. Jones, The
Associations of Classical Athens (New York and Oxford 1999) 225.
ungein ‘assemble for a (drinking) party’ may be intransitive (XXX.18n.)
or transitive (with personal object, as apparently here, Men. Dysc. 566, Pk. 175,
fr. 340). unaÅxein is attested in the sense ‘further the interests of a club’ in IG
ii2 1329 (SIG 3 1102, 175/4 bc) 7–8 unaÅxwn . . . diatetleken to± ½rgeäin
tn Ånodon (D.L. 5.70, adduced by Wilhelm and Edmonds, is irrelevant).
And so the words have been translated ‘diejenigen, welche mit ihm Förderer
(des Vereins) sind’ (Bechert, similarly Diels), ‘plans the attendance of his fellow
financial sponsors’ (Rusten). But, even if the verb could be used absolutely,
such innocent activity is not an example of ½yimaq©a. There is no plausible
conjecture: unxonta Coray, Schneider, undixonta Bloch, unionta
Darvaris, ionta or aÉloÓnta Ast, iomnou or unauloÓnta Foss
1835, unaulonta Jebb, toÆ <m> . . . unaÅxonta Edmonds 1929.
Perhaps the verb is sound, and there is a lacuna. For met . . . un-,
XXI.11 n.
12 kaª makr¼n ndrinta pa©zein pr¼ t¼n autoÓ k»louqon: we know no

more of this game than the game mentioned at V.5. Various guesses: ‘tableaux
vivants’ Jebb; ‘leap-frog’ Edmonds and Austen; ‘walking on stilts’ Bury; ‘a
children’s gymnastic feat involving standing on another player’s shoulders’
Edmonds; embracing statues as a muscle-building exercise (E. K. Borthwick,
CQ 51 (2001) 494–8). In English, ‘play statues’ is a familiar expression, nowa-
days a favourite of football writers (‘The defence played statues’), and is derived
from a game in which the players adopt statuesque poses (I. and P. Opie, Chil-
dren’s Games in Street and Playground (Oxford 1969) 245–7). But if the game is of
that kind the epithet makr»n (‘play a tall statue’) is unexpected. The expres-
sion may be corrupt. There are many conjectures, none remotely plausible:
pr» for makr»n Casaubon, pr¼ mikr»n Gale, pr¼ makr¼n . . . pala©ein
Reiske 1757, mikr¼n . . . pizein Coray, makräi ndrª ntipala©ein Darvaris,
pa©ein Ast, ndrinti Sheppard, Mnhn for makr»n Hartung, pagkrat©wi
ndr©zeqai Hanow 1861, ∗ maktr©nda Naber, makrn jain©nda Diels (makrn
makes no sense), “öAron ndrinta” Borthwick. While ndrinta could well
be a corruption of a game ending in -©nda (Poll. 9.110–7 documents this for-
mation), makr»n remains intractable. For the form aut-, I.2n.; k»louqon,
IX.3n.
13 kaª diatoxeÅeqai kaª diakont©zeqai täi tän paid©wn paidagwgäi: cf.

X. Cyr. 1.4.4 £ diatoxeu»meno £ diakontioÅmeno. These are skills needed in
war, and ephebes received training in both. Javelin-throwing was also a sport:
484
an event in the pentathlon (E. N. Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals
(London 1910) 338–58, id. Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford 1930) 169–76,
H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics (London 1964) 92–7, id. Sport in Greece and
Rome (London 1972) 36–7), and practised by youths in the gymnasium (Antipho
3). Archery is included in the educational curriculum by Pl. Lg. 804c. Cf.
J. Delorme, Gymnasion (Paris 1960) 275–6.
kaª ma <keleÅein aÉt> manqnein par ì aËtoÓ: I take the subject of
manqnein to be the children, not (as others do) the paidagogos. The following
words then read more naturally, with ke©nou opposed to aËtoÓ: it is from the
father himself, not from him (the paidagogos), that the children are to learn.
Clarity requires that the subject should be specified. We therefore need to add
more than an infinitive (par ì aÉtoÓ <keleÅein> Reiske 1749 (Briefe 362) and
1757, <keleÅein> manqnein Dobree, par ì aËtoÓ <paraine±n> Hanow 1861).
Masculine aÉtoÅ or toÅtou (cf. taÅta §2) would be possible; but a neuter
(aÉt rather than taÓta, which would too easily be taken as non-personal
object of manqnein) is commended by V.5. Alternatively, e.g. manqnein <aÉt
keleÅein>. For ma, XXV.8n.
Þ n kaª ke©nou m pitamnou: KG 1.242, Goodwin §214, Hindenlang
79.
14 kaª pala©wn d ì n täi balane©wi pukn dran trjein: it is unclear

whether pala©wn is to be taken with n täi balane©wi, to indicate that in
the baths he is acting like a wrestler, or is to be taken as an instance of the
bare introductory participle which sets the scene and indicates the type of
activity in which the subject is engaged (VII.8n.), ‘when he is a wrestler’, in
which case n täi balane©wi may be taken with pukn dran trjein. In
either case the wrestling is a solo performance and his opponent is imaginary.
He shows off his technique in the baths, rather than in the wrestling ring. Cf.
Macho 94–5 n täi balane©wi katamaqÜn oÔn ple©ona | gumnazomnou
tän meirak©wn par täi pur© (‘the youths . . . are doing physical exercises
before or after their athletics in the gymnasium’ Gow). Baths are associated
with palaestra and gymnasium: Ar. Au. 140 p¼ gumna©ou leloumnon, [X.]
Ath. 2.10 gumnia kaª loutr kaª podutria . . . pala©tra poll,
podutria, louträna; Delorme (§13n.) 304–11, Ginouvès, Balaneutikè
124–50, I. Nielsen, Thermae et Balnea (Aarhus 1990) 1.9–12, F. Yegül, Baths and
Bathing in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge Mass. and London 1992) 6–29. Emen-
dation is uncalled for: <ãper> pala©wn Clericus (§10n.) 2.53, pala©a Ast,
balaneÅwn or <Þ> pala©wn Foss 1858.
dran trjein is ‘twist the buttocks’ (LSJ dra iii), technical termi-
nology, indicating a turn of the hip ‘for a side headlock and hipthrow’
(Poliakoff, Combat Sports (§5n.) 34). Cf. Theoc. 24.111 –12 Âa d ì p¼ kelwn
485
COMMENTARY
drotr»joi ìArg»qen ndre | lllou jllonti pala©main.119 No need

for ∗ drotroje±n (Edmonds 1929).
Âpw pepaideÓqai dok¦i: not, with general reference, ‘in order that he
may appear educated’ ( Jebb), as if buttock-twisting were a sign of education,
but, more specifically, ‘appear to have been educated in the art of wrestling’,
‘be reputed an expert’ (LSJ paideÅw ii, illustrating perf. part. pepaideumno,
‘educated, trained, expert’).
15 kaª Âtan åi<n ggÆ> guna±k<e> meletn ½rce±qai: when women

approach, he shows off. For the supplement cf. e.g. Ar. Eq. 244 ndre ggÅ,
fr. 318 o¬ gr ¤rw ggÅ e«in, Pl. Phdr. 254d peid ggÆ §an, X. An.
2.3.6 ggÅ pou baileÆ §n. Alternatively <par>äi (Schneider) or åi
<plh©on> (Foss 1858). Not <coroª> gunaik<än> (Diels); the expression
would be like V.7 Âtan §i qa, XXII.6 Âtan §i Moue±a, but would imply some
formal occasion, when a man who started to dance and hum would merely
look a fool.
aÉt¼ aËtäi teret©zwn: cf. Ar. Ec. 880 minuromnh ti pr¼ mautn mlo,
931 idw pr¼ mautn, XIX.9 unteret©zein.
[16] Epilogue
If didakal©a is right, this epilogue belongs here, where it was first transposed
by Boissonade (ap. Schweighäuser 1803) before Hanow 1861. If it belongs after
XXVIII, didakal©a must be changed. Proposed changes are unappealing:
kakolog©a Coray, dukol©a Hottinger, «d©a kak©a Foss 1836 before Diels,
diabol©a Ussing, bakan©a Meiser. Words shared with other spurious pas-
sages are oÌtw (epil. VIII) and ¢qei (epil. I, VI.2).
119 I reject the conjecture trjein dran for trjein rn at Ar. Ra. 957 (R. G. Ussher,
Hermathena 85 (1955) 57–60), accepted by Sommerstein (1996, and Addenda to his
ed. of Pl. (2001) 316). Such a figurative expression jars with the plainer verbs which
surround it. Sommerstein’s argument that ‘“being in love” is . . . not something one
can be taught’ is answered by Asclep. AP 5.167.6 (Gow-Page, Hellenistic Epigrams 875)
rn maqe, Lib. Decl. 12.40 oÉ taÓt me d©daxen ¾ tr»po, rn meqÅein aÉlhtr©di
proanake±qai kwmzein, Iamb. Bab. fr. 35 Habrich d©dakon taÅthn rn. The
transmitted text is defended by E. K. Borthwick, CPh 92 (1997) 363–7.
486
XXVIII
THE SLANDERER
Introductory note
Certain types of false statement invited an action for slander, d©kh kakhgor©a
(MacDowell, Law 126–9 and on D. 21.81). The Kakol»go risks prosecution
once at least, when he speaks ill of the dead (§6). He remains a shadowy figure, a
malicious gossip, with no individual traits of personality and no motive except
a perverse pleasure in speaking ill (§6), and standing in no clearly defined
relationship to either his victims or his hearers.
[1 ] Definition
gwg yuc¦ e« t¼ ce±ron n l»goi: a lumpish expression, deserving a
translation no better than I have given it. g- is ‘movement, impulse, tendency’,
as Pl. R. 604b nant©a . . . gwg¦ gignomnh n täi nqrÛpwi (LSJ i.1.b),
but not Pl. Lg. 673a tn ntecnon gwgn pª t¼ toioÓton aÉtoÓ (cited by
Immisch 1897), where it is ‘training’ (LSJ ii.3) and aÉtoÓ is objective. On Hp.
Epid. 1.1 (cited by LSJ) see Stein 255 n. 3. For yuc¦ without art. (Edmonds
1908), def. XIV, XXV; e« t¼ ce±ron, def. I n.; n l»goi, def. XV.
2 toi»de ti: XVII.2n.

rwthqeª “ëO de±na t© tin;”: cf. XV.2.
†
oÉkoÓnde† kaqper o¬ genealogoÓnte: cf. Isoc. 15.180 boÅlomai . . .
perª t¦ tän l»gwn paide©a ãper o¬ genealogoÓnte präton dielqe±n
pr¼ Ëm. Genealogy had always been a popular subject, as Homer, Hesiod,
and the early historians attest (R. Thomas, OCD3 ‘Genealogy’, R. L. Fowler,
‘Genealogical thinking’, PCPhS 44 (1998) 1 –19). By the fifth century praise
of ancestors was a regular prelude to encomia (Gorg. Hel. 3, X. Ages. 1.2)
and funeral speeches (Th. 2.36.1, Pl. Mx. 237a, Lys. 2.3, D. 60.3, Hyp.
Epit. 6–7). Abuse of ancestors, no less than praise, was a stock-in-trade of
the rhetorician: Anaximen. Lampsac. ([Arist.] Rh.Al.) 35.10 kakologoÓnta
pª tän mocqhrän prog»nwn poihton tn genealog©an (W. Süss, Ethos:
Studien zur älteren griechischen Rhetorik (Leipzig and Berlin 1910) 247–8, S. Koster,
Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur (Meisenheim am Glan 1980)
14). The tracing of a neighbour’s disreputable ancestors is one manifestation
of polupragmoÅnh (Plu. 516b trou genealogoÓmen, Âti toÓ ge©tono ¾
pppo §n Åro, Qritta d’ ¡ tqh).
For oÉkoÓnde there is no satisfactory solution. Not (with e«pe±n for preceding
tin) “oÉkoÓn d ktl.” (Hanow 1860), since this heavy Platonic connective
487
COMMENTARY
(Plt. 303b, 305e, R. 459e, Sph. 256d, 257a; Denniston 469) is inappropriate here;
nor ½gkoÓqai ‘speak pompously’ (Diels, comparing Ath. 403e ÝgkÛato, of
a comic cook in Anaxipp. 1), since pomposity neither suits the purpose of a slan-
derer nor well characterises the style of what follows. Other proposals: oÉkoÓn
ante präton Schneider, e«pe±n Foss 1836, e«pe±n d Foss 1858 (for d, inappro-
priate here, XX.3n.), o«konome±n Immisch 1897 (<e«pe±n> o«konomän Stein-
metz), “oÉkoÓn” j¦ai (Diels ap. Sandys), dhloÓn Meiser, <e«pe±n> “koue
d” Edmonds 1929. There is no advantage in beginning the direct speech with
“Kaqper ktl.” (Cobet 1874).
Präton p¼ toÓ gnou aÉtoÓ rxomai: he uses, for ironical effect, a turn
of phrase characteristic of funeral speeches or encomia (Th. 2.36.1 rxomai . . .
p¼ tän prog»nwn präton, D. 60.3 rxomai . . . p¼ t¦ toÓ gnou
aÉtän rc¦, Hyp. Epit. 6 p»qen rxwma[i lgwn] £ t©no prÛtou mnhqä;
p»tera perª toÓ gnou aÉtän ktwn diexlqw;). Pleonastic präton with
rcein/rceqai is very common: e.g. HP 7.13.3, Hdt. 1.2.1, Ar. Nu. 1353,
Th. 1.103.4, Pl. R. 546d, X. HG 7.4.25, D. 61.10, Aeschin. 1.22, Arist. EE
1217 a 18–19.
w©a . . . w©trato . . . <w©dhmo>: in Attica the name Sosias was
borne by citizens, foreigners, and slaves (LGPN 2.415, Osborne and Byrne e.g.
nos. 213, 3199, 3383, 8043–6, S. Lauffer, Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion (Wies-
baden 2 1979) 129, Ch. Fragiadakis, Die attischen Sklavennamen (Athens 1988)
373–4, al.); in comedy, regularly by slaves (A. W. Gomme and F. H. Sandbach,
Menander: A Commentary (Oxford 1973) 465–6; cf. S uet. Ar. Ach. 243 (IX.3n.));
in X. Vect. 4.14 (Osborne and Byrne 2586), by a wealthy Thracian. Sosistratos
is common in Attica (Arist. Po. 1462 a 7, D. 18.295, LGPN 2.418) and attested
elsewhere (LGPN 1.423, 3a.415). Sosidemos (restored here by Meier 1850) is
attested in the fourth century in Attica (LGPN 2.416, Osborne and Byrne
no. 6512) and on Delos (LGPN 1.421). For other changes of name by upstarts cf.
D. 18.130 (Tr»mh to ìAtr»mhto and ï Empoua to Glaukoqa), Herod. 2.38
( ìArt©mmh to Qal¦), Luc. Gall. 14 (©mwn to imwn©dh), Tim. 22 (ntª toÓ
tw Purr©ou £ Dr»mwno £ Tibe©ou Megakl¦ £ Megbuzo £ PrÛtarco
metonomaqe©); further instances in Headlam on Herod. 2.38. P. M. Fraser,
BSAA 40 (1953) 56–9, id. in Ancient Macedonia: Fifth International Symposium 1
(Thessaloniki 1993) 447, suggests that it may have been accepted practice for
a slave to change his name on gaining his freedom, and that Sosias is one
such slave. But the Slanderer declines to be specific, and it suits his purpose to
leave the picture blurred. He invites us to infer, if we wish, that Sosias was a
slave, and to speculate on the reasons for his changes of name. His purpose is
to insinuate that Sosias is a pretentious parvenu with something to hide. The
adaptation of name to circumstance is reminiscent of a motif which is frequent
in comedy (E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) 23–38 = Elementi
Plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960) 21 –35).
488
XXVIII: THE SLANDERER
gneto d n to± tratiÛtai: perhaps as a mercenary. Athens often

recruited Thracian peltasts (e.g. Th. 2.29.5, 4.28.4; J. G. P. Best, Thracian
Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen 1969)). Fraser (above) 57
n. 1 cites a change of name in the Ptolemaic army: P. Ryl. 585.41 (ii bc)
DionÅio[ ìA]qhnag»rou, Þ d ì n täi tra[tiwt]ikäi Nik»lao ìOnh©mou.
peid d e« toÆ dhm»ta negrjh: registration in the deme necessar-
ily preceded admission to citizenship, and citizenship was normally granted
only to those whose father was a citizen and whose mother was the daugh-
ter of a citizen ([Arist.] Ath. 42.1 –2, Rhodes ad loc., Harrison 2.206–7, Mac-
Dowell, Law 67–70, Whitehead, Demes of Attica esp. 97–109, Hansen, Athenian
Democracy 94–7, S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor 1993) 27–43,
D. Ogden, Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods (Oxford 1996) 120–
3). But citizenship was occasionally granted to foreigners and even to slaves
(MacDowell 70–3, M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens (Brussels 1981 –3),
Whitehead 103, Hansen 53–4, 94–5, Kapparis on [D.] (Apollod.) 59.89). So
the Slanderer is not necessarily insinuating that Sosias was registered ille-
gally, as Demosthenes insinuates of Aeschines (18.261 peid . . . e« toÆ
dhm»ta negrjh ¾pwdpote). <par>enegrjh (Cobet 1873) is too
explicit.
¡ mntoi mthr eÉgen Qritt ti . . . t d toiaÅta jaªn n t¦i
patr©di eÉgene± e²nai: the epithet eÉgen is not sufficiently explained by Men.
fr. 891 Qrix eÉgen e², pr¼ la goramno, ‘a true Thracian, bought
in exchange for salt’, i.e. a true (typical) slave, cheaply bought (cf. Bühler on
Zen. ii.86). If ‘his mother is a true Thracian’ means merely that she is a true
slave, what follows (‘they say that in their own country such women are true
slaves’) is banal. To suppose that ‘such women’ are not merely slaves but pros-
titutes (Edmonds) does not much help. A. D. Knox (PCPhS 100 (1916) 6 and ap.
Headlam on Herod. 5.65) saw that the epithet alludes to the mark of high birth
which is particularly associated with Thracians, the tattoo: Hdt. 5.6.2 t¼ mn
t©cqai eÉgen kkritai, t¼ d tikton genn, Dialex. (90 DK) 2.13 to± . . .
Qraixª k»mo t k»ra t©zeqai· to± d ì lloi timwr©a t t©gmata to±
dikonti, D.Chr. 14.19 t guna±ka t leuqra tigmtwn met kaª
tooÅtwi ple©ona coÅa t©gmata kaª poikilÛtera Âwi n belt©ou kaª
k belti»nwn dokäin, Artem. 1.8 t©zontai par Qraixªn o¬ eÉgene± pa±de;
cf. Ar. fr. 90, Clearch. fr. 46 Wehrli ap. Ath. 524de, Phanocl. 1.23–6 Powell
(H. Lloyd-Jones, Academic Papers: Greek Comedy etc. (Oxford 1990) 211), Plu. 557d.
Similarly X. An. 5.4.32 (of the MoÅnoikoi) pa±da tän eÉdaim»nwn . . .
poik©lou . . . t näta kaª t mproqen pnta, tigmnou nqmia. See
A. B. Cook, Zeus 2 (Cambridge 1925) 123, Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational 163
n. 44, K. Zimmermann, ‘Tätowierte Thrakerinnen auf griechischen Vasen-
bildern’, JDAI 95 (1980) 163–96, C. P. Jones, ‘Stigma: Tattooing and branding
in Graeco-Roman antiquity’, JRS 77 (1987) 139–55. Thracians, in Athenian
489
COMMENTARY
eyes, are uncouth barbarians; Thracian women too (Pl. Tht. 174ac, 175d).
Others taunted with a Thracian mother are Themistocles (anon. AP 7.306
(Page, Further Greek Epigrams 1158–9), Ael. VH 12.43), Antisthenes (D.L. 6.1.1),
Cleophon (Pl.Com. 61), Timotheus the general (Ath. 577a–b); cf. Eup. 262. For
further taunts of alien pedigree see Headlam on Herod. 2.38, 6.34; as a stock
item of abuse by the orators, Süss (above on † oÉkoÓnde† ktl.) 248; in comedy,
D. M. MacDowell, ‘Foreign birth and Athenian citizenship in Aristophanes’,
in A. H. Sommerstein et al. (edd.), Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis (Bari 1993)
359–71 . Qritta, here ethnic, was a common slave-name (Headlam on
Herod. 1.1, Gow on Theoc. 2.70, Olson on Ar. Pax 1138–9 and Ach. 273,
Fragiadakis (above) 352–3, al.). For ja©n (subject unexpressed), KG 1.33 (c, a),
Schwyzer 2.245 (d), LSJ ii.1. So not a¬ . . . toiaÓtai (Needham). Cf. also Alex.
94 tin d podap¼ t¼ gno oÕto; : : ploÅio. | toÅtou d (ge Arnott)
pnte (pnta Bothe) jaªn eÉgenettou | <e²nai>.
mntoi, adversative, answering mn (Denniston 404), is preferred to d
because two instances of d (non-adversative, VI.9n.) have preceded. The word
is found only here in this work, but occasionally elsewhere in T. (Müller (1874)
9, Blomqvist 30).
kale±tai goÓn † ¡ yuc krinok»raka† : ¡ yuc cannot be taken as sub-
ject, ‘das Schätzchen’ (Immisch), ‘the good soul’ (Headlam on Herod. 6.34),
‘the darling’ (Rusten). As a term of endearment, yuc is used only in the
voc. (Theoc. 24.8, Macho 223, Mart. 10.68.5, Juv. 6.195, Hld. 1.8.4, 2.5.2)
or as a predicate after a verb of address (Hld. 8.6.4 Car©kleian zwn kaª
jä kaª yucn nakalän, 1.9.4, 1.14.6); Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca
319–20, Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 186–7. ¡ yuc Korinqiakä ( Jebb), ‘she
is called “my life” in the language of Corinth’, is a comical conjecture, with an
impossible article and a fanciful adverb, but is at least a legitimate use of the
noun. No such name as Krinok»raka (or -korka, Studniczka ap. Immisch
1897) is attested; and a name compounded of lily and crow beggars belief.
Knox takes it to suggest ‘Black and White’, in allusion to a tattoo. But kr©non
was not a byword for whiteness: some varieties of plant so named were not
white (Gow and Scholfield on Nic. fr. 74.25ff., Gow on Theoc. 11.56). There
is nothing remotely comparable in V. Beševliev, Untersuchungen über die Perso-
nennamen bei den Thrakern (Amsterdam 1970). Other proposals: Krinokor©kh
(‘Lilienmädchen’) Hottinger, krin»crou k»ra Bloch, Koinok»raka Foss 1836,
¡ jul Binokoria Meier 1850, Krinokorion Foss 1858, Krinokorkion
Hanow 1861, Krinag»ra Münsterberg 1895, [¡] ë Rinok»raka (‘Miss Crow-
beak’) Bury, -korÛka Headlam (on Herod. 6.34), ¡uc¦ K- (‘when nobody’s
listening’) Edmonds 1929.
It is essential that the name restored here should allude to tattooing, since
(i) goÓn is most naturally explained as introducing a statement which offers
‘part proof’ of what precedes (Denniston 451 –3), and (ii) t d toiaÅta ktl.
490
needs a specific point of reference (‘such women’ must be ‘tattooed women’).

The connection of thought is: ‘His mother is a true Thracian woman; at
any rate her name suggests that she is tattooed; and tattooing is a mark of a
true Thracian woman.’ One such name is attested: Lys. 13.19 ì Elaj»tikto
(W. Dittenberger, Hermes 37 (1902) 298–301, P. Wolters, ib. 38 (1903) 265–73,
O. Crusius, Philologus 62 (1903) 125–31, Jones (above) 145).
aÉt¼ d oÕto Þ k toioÅtwn gegonÜ kak¼ kaª tigmat©a: conversely,
Gorg. Hel. 4 k toioÅtwn . . . genomnh ce t¼ «»qeon kllo, And. 1.109
gaqoª x gaqän Ànte pdote tn Ëprcouan retn, Pl. Mx. 237a
gaqoª . . . gnonto di t¼ jÓnai x gaqän, Anaximen. Lampsac. 35.7
toÆ x gaqän genomnou e«k» ti to± prog»noi ¾moioÓqai, Arist. Rh.
1367 b 31 –2 e«k¼ gr x gaqän gaqoÆ kaª t¼n oÌtw trajnta toioÓ-
ton e²nai; Dover, Greek Popular Morality 94. Although matig©a (V) makes
sense, the elaborate preamble on the Thracian mother leads inescapably to
tigmat©a, which rounds off the passage with a double entendre. The son, as
you would expect with parents like these, is tattooed. A tattoo indicates noble
birth in Thrace, but in Athens a delinquent (usually runaway) slave (Ar. Au. 760
drapth tigmno, Ra. 1511, Aeschin. 2.79 àn ndrapodÛdh kaª m»non
oÉk tigmno aÉt»molo, And. fr. 5 Blass, Eup. 277, Pl. Lg. 854d, Men.
Sam. 323, 654–5, Diph. 67.7, Pl.Com. 203.2, PCG adesp. 1066.9; cf. Bion of
Borysthenes (f1 a Kindstrand) ap. D.L. 4.46, Call. 203.56, Herod. 5.28, 65–7)
or a prisoner of war sold into slavery (Plu. Per. 26.4 (cf. Ar. fr. 71), Nic. 29.2). See
Headlam on Herod. 5.66–7, 79, Hug, ‘tigmat©a’, RE iii.2a (1929) 2520–2,
Jones (above) 147–50, V. J. Hunter, Policing Athens (Princeton 1994) 170–1,
181 –3. The word tigmat©a is applied contemptuously to a free man by Asius
14.1, Cratin. 81 (also with a double entendre: LSJ i.2), Eup. 172.14. The same note
of contempt is present in Cic. Off. 2.25 barbarum et eum quidem, ut scriptum est,
compunctum notis Thraeciis . . . stigmatiam. The same corruption, Ar. Lys. 331
tigmat©ai (u.l. matig©ai), Hsch. 1854 t©gwn· tigmat©a (matig©a
cod.) (cf. Ar. fr. 99).
3 kaª † kakän† d pr» tina e«pe±n: although a defining gen. is dispensable

(IV.10 par tou, XXIV.12 pr» tina), undefined pr» tina is unwelcome
here. Analogy suggests article as well as gen.: II.8 pr» tina tän j©lwn, XI.5
tän pari»ntwn . . . tina, XIV.7 ti aÉtoÓ tän j©lwn, XXIV.9 tän Ëj ì
aËt»n tini, XXV.2 ti . . . tän ple»ntwn, XXX.19 tino tän j©lwn. There
is no plausible conjecture: kakä (as if from V) Siebenkees, kakän d del. Coray,
lacuna after d Schneider (after tina Navarre 1918), ¬kan» Foss 1836 (VI.8n.),
kÛn Ribbeck 1870, <>kkwn Immisch 1897, <perª gunaikän >kakän
Edmonds 1929, kak<hgor>än or kak<ono>än Stark.
ì EgÜ dpou † t toiaÓta o²da Ëpr æn Æ plan pr¼ m kaª toÅ-
toi diexiÛn† : the commonly printed “ . . . Æ plani (Schneider) pr¼
491
COMMENTARY
m,” kpª (Immisch 1897; kaª <pª> or kaª <t pª> Casaubon) toÅtoi
d- is incoherent. diexinai (Fischer) or diexiÜn <e«pe±n> (Ast) or <j¦ai>
(Foss 1836) helps coherence, but not sense. “ . . . Æ plani (oÉ plani Jebb)
pr¼ m kaª toÅtou (Ussing) is no better, whether translated ‘Of course –
I understand that sort of thing; you do not err in your way of describing it
to my friends and me’ ( Jebb) or ‘I know only too well what trollops they are
whose cause you are so mistaken as to champion to these gentlemen and me’
(Edmonds). t toiaÅta (Schneider) would clumsily recall t . . . toiaÅta
(with different reference) in §2.
aÕtai a¬ guna±ke k t¦ ¾doÓ toÆ pari»nta unarpzoui: cf. Lys.
1.27 oÉk e«arpaqeª k t¦ ¾doÓ, 3.46 o¬ b©ai k t¦ ¾doÓ unarpzonte
¡m, and (all of sexually rapacious women or prostitutes) Ar. Ec. 693–4 kat
t di»dou | prop©ptouai to± p¼ de©pnou, 881 –2 Âpw n perilboimì
aÉtän tin | pari»nta, Xenarch. 4.13 aÉtaª bizontai gr e«lkou© te.
Cf. S. Halliwell in M. C. Nussbaum and J. Sihvola (edd.), The Sleep of Reason:
Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago and London
2002) 127, 131 .
O«k©a ti aÌth t klh rku±a: ‘This is a house with its legs raised’, i.e. a
brothel, the same sexual image as Ar. Pax 889 ranta . . . tÜ klei, Ec. 265,
Au. 1254 nate©na tä klei, Lys. 229 ( J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse (New
York and London 2 1991) 173); similarly pedem tollere Cic. Att. 2.1.5, Petr. 55.6,
Mart. 10.81.4, 11.71.8 ( J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London 1982)
192–3). ‘House’ as subject is remarkable. But there is no plausible emendation:
o«ke©a . . . areqai Schneider (o«ke±a© e«in aÕtai . . . areqai Darvaris), rknai
Foss 1858, arein e«wqu±a Hanow 1861, tÜ klh rkuiän Herwerden, kÅlla
Unger 1889.
oÉ gr oÔn l¦r» ti t¼ leg»menon ll ì : if this is right, t¼ leg»menon is
subject and l¦ro is predicate, and the meaning is ‘what is being said is not
nonsense’. t¼ leg»menon cannot mean ‘that proverb’ ( Jebb) or ‘the (old) saying’
(Edmonds, Rusten), since in this sense it is never subject of the verb. It is often
parenthetic, ‘as the saying goes’ (e.g. Th. 7.87.6, Pl. Phd. 101 d, Tht. 153d, Men.
Asp. 372; LSJ lgw iii.10, Headlam on Herod. 2.45); but not here, since ‘as
the saying goes’ is no suitable qualification for ‘it is not nonsense’. For l¦ro
as predicate see e.g. Luc. Salt. 7 e« l¦ro e²na© oi d»xei t lecqh»mena, Ar.
Lys. 860 l¦r» ti tlla, Aeschin. 2.52 tautª . . . l¦r» tin, Pl. Lg. 698a,
Arist. Pol. 1257 b 10, Antiph. 229.1, Men. Epit. 277, Xenarch. 7.1 . o³on (V) ‘as
it were’ (LSJ o³o v.2.d) is not a suitable qualification for the straightforward
l¦ro, and receives no support from oÉ gr o³on . . . ll in Plb. 1.20.12,
an entirely different locution (LSJ v.4), and must be changed to oÔn. For gr
oÔn, Denniston 445–8. ll is unexceptionable (Denniston 1), and there is no
need to delete it (Ast) or to write ll ì <lhqä> (Meier 1850). <kaª> “OÉ
gr ktl.” (Edmonds 1929) leaves gr otiose.
492
ãper a¬ kÅne n ta± ¾do± uncontai: in place of ãper a¬ guna±ke

(V) it is better to write ãper a¬ kÅne (Darvaris 1815, but probably antici-
pated by an anonymous reviewer cited by Ast 1816; also K. A. Böttiger
(obiit 1835) in a marginal annotation, according to Foss 1836) than ãper
<kÅne> a¬ guna±ke (Ast), since a¬ guna±ke would feebly repeat aÕtai a¬
guna±ke. For the corruption, prompted by preceding guna±ke, see on V.9
palaitr©dion. Less likely ãper kÅne without article. The art. designates
dogs as a genus (‘they couple in the street, as dogs (do)’, rather than ‘they cou-
ple in the street like dogs’), and is regular in such comparisons: e.g. (to cite only
animals, insects, fish, and fowl) Pherecr. 28.5 ãper kaª to± ku©n, 30 ãper
tän a«gid©wn, Ar. V. 1111 ãper o¬ kÛlhke, Au. 1681, Lys. 755, 1255, Hdt.
4.183.4, Pl. Smp. 191 cd, Ion 534b, Pl.Com. 100, Ath. 592b. Not a¬ kÅlake
(Wachsmuth ap. Immisch 1897), ‘puppies’, the wrong age for both women
and animals. Dogs are an exemplum of unfettered coupling in Lucr. 4.1203, Ov.
Ars 2.484, S Tr A. Ag. 607. The bitch as a symbol of female licentiousness is
as old as Homer (S. Lilja, Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry (Helsinki 1976) 22, West
on Hes. Op. 67). uncontai (LSJ i.2.d) is more effective than unrcontai
(Schneider).
T¼ Âlon ndrok»balo© tine: ndr»laloi (V) ought not to mean ‘gossip-
ing about men’ (LSJ) or ‘gossiping with men’ ( Jebb, al.) but ‘gossiping like
men’; preposterously weak, however translated. ndrok»baloi (Foss 1836) is
the only meritorious conjecture. The word is attested, probably from comedy
(PCG adesp. 274), by Hsch. A 4752, Phot. A 1765 Theodoridis, Suda A 2182,
who half-heartedly gloss it kakoÓrgo, panoÓrgo, and ignore the prefix
ndro-. The simple k»balo and kobleia by contrast attract a variety of addi-
tional explanations from lexicographers and scholiasts (for example, pateÛn,
bwmol»co, lhit, kirajÛdh, twqat; propoiht¼ met pth
paidi), which suggest (as does actual usage, mainly by the comedians) that
the underlying sense was felt to be not so much simple villainy as mockery,
teasing, and deception. Origin (the root is not Attic) and etymology are uncer-
tain: É. Boisacq, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Heildelberg 4 1950)
479, G. Björck, Das Alpha Impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache (Uppsala 1950)
46–7, 258–9, Frisk 1.889, Chantraine 550.
S Tzetz. Ar. Pl. 279 (p. 81 Koster) (= Harp. p. 183.12 Dindorf, but deleted by
Dindorf as an interpolation from S Ar.) makes a novel claim: k»baloi da©mon
e«i klhroª perª t¼n Di»nuon. About these ‘tough spirits round Dionysus’,
whether or not they existed, and, if they did, what form they took, we know
nothing. The sceptical survey by C. A. Lobeck, Aglaophamus (Königsberg 1829)
1312–29, has not been superseded. The entry in Roscher, Lex.Myth. ii (1890–
94) 1264, ‘K»baloi, ungestaltete, neckische und possenhafte Kobolde oder
Dämonen aus der späteren bakchischen Schar, zu der Gattung der Satyrn
gehörig’ (similarly Adler, ‘Kobaloi’, RE xi.1 (1921) 931), owes nothing to
493
COMMENTARY
evidence, everything to imagination and the interesting but possibly mislead-

ing fact that k»balo is the linguistic parent of ‘goblin’. It would be unwise
to infer the reality of spirits of this name from their appearance in the farcical
list in Ar. Eq. 634–5 k©taloi kaª Fnake . . . Berceqo© te kaª K»baloi kaª
M»qwn. A further passage which links the word with Dionysus (Philoch. FGrH
328 f 6 oÉ gr, ãper nioi lgouin, bwmol»con tin kaª k»balon genqai
nomiton t¼n Di»nuon) tantalises rather than enlightens.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for non-human K»baloi is the word
ndrok»balo itself, which is most naturally explained as a compound of
contrasting partners, nr and k»balo, in the manner of ndr»jigx (Hdt.
2.175.1), ndrokpraina (Pherecr. 186), ndrog©ga (Call. Cer. 34), nqrwpo-
da©mwn (E. Rh. 971); E. Risch, IF 59 (1944–9) 56–61. The comic poet (if such he
was) who coined ndrok»balo may have designed it to mean ‘man-goblin’, a
man behaving impishly. The word can be applied to women, since the idea of
masculinity is not always felt in compounds with ndro- (so ndrokpraina,
ndrog©ga, A. Ag. 1092 ndrojage±on; Hopkinson on Call. Cer. 34). Even if
this explanation of the compound is wrong, the implications of -k»baloi are
exactly suited to the context. For the appended tine (‘a type of . . .’) cf. A. Ag.
1233 kÅllan tin (LSJ a.ii.6.b).
The other conjectures: -poio© Bötticher (according to Immisch 1897),
-l»goi Coray, -lagnoi Schneider, -jgoi Ast, -lboi or -mane± Foss 1836,
-mcoi Ribbeck 1870, -lamoi Unger 1889, ndrÛlei Immisch 1897, -lakkoi
Wachsmuth ap. Immisch, -j»noi Münsterberg 1898, -b»roi Fraenkel and
Groeneboom, -macloi Koujeas. No need for tine <e«i> (Ribbeck): for the
ellipse, o«k©a ti aÌth ktl. above, I.6, VII.3, XXVI.5. For t¼ Âlon, I.6n.
AÉtaª t¦i qÅrai t¦i aÉle©wi ËpakoÅoui: see on IV.9 t¦i qÅrai (tn qÅran
AB) ËpakoÓai aÉt». Here too I change acc. (tn qÅran tn aÎleion V) to
dat. If, instead, a preposition is inserted, <kat> (Schneider) or <par>
(Kayser) or <pr¼> (Cobet 1874) will serve, but not <pª> (Foss 1858). Alter-
natively <k»yanto> (Sitzler). Women who answer their own doors must (he
implies) be soliciting for custom. Cf. Ar. Pax 979–82 kaª m po©ei g ì per a¬ |
moiceu»menai dräi guna±ke · | kaª gr ke±nai parakl©naai | t¦ aÉle©a
parakÅptouin; A. J. Graham, ‘The woman at the window’, JHS 118 (1998)
22–40.

kakä leg»ntwn trwn unepilabqai epa: for the choice between
epa and e«pÛn (Schneider; epwn reported from V by Siebenkees), V.2n.
Present infin. unepilambneqai (V) cannot coexist with aorist part. (VII.3n.).
unepilambneqai <kaª> e«pe±n (Stein) is an unwelcome combination of
tenses.
494
ì EgÜ d toÓton t¼n nqrwpon plon pntwn mem©hka: cf. D. 19.103

mlita pntwn nqrÛpwn mie±n aÉtäi prokei F©lippon. The rare per-
fect mem©hka (Ar. Ach. 300, Pl. Phlb. 44c, Ep. 350d; Isoc. 5.137 memihmno),
‘I have come to hate’, ‘I am in a state of hating’, is analogous to e.g. gghqa,
gnwka, nen»mika, teqaÅmaka (KG 1.148–9; P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait
grec (Paris 1927) 252). For d introducing quoted speech, I.6n., VI.9n.
kaª gr e«decq ti p¼ toÓ proÛpou t©n: ‘ugly of countenance’ (LSJ
p» a.iii.2), like X. Cyn. 4.2 kÅne . . . p¼ tän proÛpwn jaidra©. Related,
but not identical, is the use (‘judging from’) represented by Plu. Phoc. 5.1 p¼
toÓ proÛpou duxÅmbolo ja©neto kaª kuqrwp», Antiph. 35.2 p¼ t¦
mn Àyew ëEllhnik», Men. Dysc. 258 kakoÓrgo eÉqÆ p¼ toÓ blmmato,
further illustrated by Gow on Theoc. 16.49. For ti, V.3n.
t¦i d ponhr©ai oÉdn Âmoion: cf. App. Pun. 35 oÉdn Âmoion . . . ta± Karch-
don©wn pit©ai. The simpler change ¡ d ponhr©a oÉden<ª> ¾mo©a (Foss
1858), entailing compendiary comparison (oÉden© for oÉden¼ ponhr©ai, KG
2.310 Anmerk. 2, LSJ Âmoio b.2.b; cf. Ov. Am. 1.8.25 nulli tua forma secunda est),
gives a much less convincing expression. ¡ d ponhr©a, oÉdn Âmoion (as com-
monly printed) is incoherent. For a similar idea, differently expressed, Antiph.
166.5 nqrwpo nuprblhto e« ponhr©an, Men. Asp. 116–17 ponhr©ai d
pnta nqrÛpou Âlw | Ëperppaiken, PCG adesp. 675 Ëperded©khka
ponhr©ai pnta.
t¦i gr aËtoÓ gunaikª tlanton e«enegkamnhi pro±ka: XXII.10n. As
there, the husband fails to provide his wife with the standard of maintenance
to which her dowry entitles her. If tlanta (V) is retained, a numeral must
be added. Contrast (a) D. 31.1 tlanton . . . tn pro±ka . . . dedwknai, 40.6
pro±ka tlanton pid»nto, 19 tlanton penegkamnh pro±ka, Men. Dysc.
845 cw tlanton pro±ka, and (b) D. 28.15 dÅo tlanta pro±ka didoÅ, Men.
Asp. 135–6 pro±k t ì ped©dou dÅo | tlanta, 268–9, Dysc. 843–4, Epit. 134,
Mis. 446, Pk. 1015. Hence -mnhi < h é> Foss 1836, <e é> e«- Meier 1850, gunaikª
<ié> Hanow, M. Schmidt (both 1860; already declined by Meineke 1859), <x>
x Jebb (<x> already Petersen, with ¤ te for x), g- < gé > Edmonds 1929.
A single talent is enough to make the point here. In the orators few dowries
exceed one talent. In Menander they range from one talent upwards. See
Finley, Studies in Land and Credit 79–80, H. J. Wolff, ‘pro©x’, RE xxiii.1 (1957)
139–40, Handley on Men. Dysc. 842–4, Gomme and Sandbach on Men. Epit.
134ff., L. Casson, TAPhA 106 (1976) 53–9, D. M. Schaps, Economic Rights of Women
in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh 1979) 74 and Appendix i, id., ‘Comic inflation in
the marketplace’, SCI 8–9 (1985–8) 66–73 (esp. 70–2), R. Just, Women in Athenian
Law and Life (London 1989) 82–3, Whitehead on Hyp. Lyc. 13. The evidence
suggests that one talent is a generous but credible sum, not ‘a fantastic figure’
(Lane Fox 130).
495
COMMENTARY
x oÕ paid©on aÉtäi genni: his meanness begins when she bears him a
child, for this ensures that the dowry remains with his family; had there been
no child of the marriage, the dowry would have returned to the wife’s family
on his or her death (Wolff 152–3, W. K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece
(London 1968) 110, MacDowell, Law 88, Schaps, Economic Rights of Women 75).
Contrast Lys. 1.6 peid d moi paid©on g©gnetai, p©teuon ¢dh kaª pnta
t mautoÓ ke©nhi pardwka, ¡goÅmeno taÅthn o«kei»thta meg©thn e²nai.
The conjecture oÕ (Immisch 1897) for ¨ (V) is as brilliant as it is simple, and
beside it ggone (V2m ) is merely astute, [genni] (Diels) crude. For present tense
genni see KG 1.137(d), Schwyzer 2.272, Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations
1 –3. aÉtäi, not aËtäi (M. Schmidt, before Edmonds 1908); I.2n.
tre± calkoÓ <t¦ ¡mra> e« Àyon d©dwi: cf. Lys. 32.20 e« Àyon . . .
duo±n paid©oin kaª delj¦i pnte ½boloÆ t¦ ¡mra log©zeto. Three
calko± are a paltry sum (VI.4n.). But we need to be told explicitly what length
of time they have to cater for. How little food they might buy is suggested by
Alex. 15, where the cheapest items listed are Ýmotrico (pickled tunny) at five
calko± and mÓ (mussels) at seven, while a çjano (cabbage) costs two obols
(sixteen calko±). These prices appear to be realistic: D. M. Schaps, SIC 8–9
(1985–8) 67, Arnott on Alex. 15.19. Similarly, in Timocl. 11.5–9, four calko±
will buy no fish more expensive than membrde (sprats). On this evidence, three
calko± would not provide an adequate Àyon (IX.4n.) for one day. By contrast,
no inference should be drawn from Men. Epit. 140–1 dÅ ì ½boloÆ t¦ ¡mra, |
[¬kan»]n ti täi peinänti <pr¼> pti[nh]n pot (‘two obols a day, once
sufficient to provide porridge for a starving man’, said with sarcasm). If three
calko± are an allowance for one day, the meanness remains within the limits
of credibility; if for much longer (say a month), the slander falls flat, because it
has lost touch with reality. Addition of t¦ ¡mra (for the gen., VI.9n.) goes
hand in hand with deletion of t¦i . . . ¡mrai below. If t¦ ¡mra was omitted
by accident, then written in the margin, it may have been reinstated, with
modification, in the wrong place. This proposal is prompted by a suggestion
of Edmonds and Austen that ‘t¦i ¡mrai was originally t¦ ¡mra, a gloss on
tre± calkoÓ’. Immisch actually glosses his own translation to the same effect:
‘einen Dreier (tägliches) Kostgeld’. But ‘daily’ cannot be inferred; it must be
spelled out. For e« ‘to meet the cost of’, Ar. Nu. 612, Pax 374, Pl. 983, Lys.
32.20–1 (several instances, one cited above), Hyp. Ath. 2, LSJ a.v.2 (ad fin.).
kaª [täi] yucräi loÓqai nagkzei [t¦i] toÓ Poideäno [¡mrai]:
yucräi sc. Ìdati, as Thgn. 263 (unless sc. o²non), Hdt. 2.37.3, Hp. VM 16
(1.608 Littré), Epid. 5.14 (5.212), Vict. 68 (6.596), Mul. 123, 169, 220 (8.266, 350,
424), Superf. 26 (8.490); also qermäi, CP 5.6.6, HP 7.5.2 (Hindenlang 99), Ar. Nu.
1044, Ec. 216, Ariston fr. 14, i (p. 36.18 Wehrli) qerm[¼]n [£ yu]cr»n; similarly
frigida and calida lauari. The art. is unwanted and is absent in the passages cited
(täi yucräi loÅein Hp. Mul. 167 (8.346) is exceptional and should perhaps be
496
brought into line); other interpolated articles, IV.10n. For the spelling loÓqai,
XXIV.11 n. Bathing in warm water is sometimes regarded as a luxury or self-
indulgence (Ar. Nu. 1044–6, Hermipp. 68, PCG adesp. 555; Dover on Nu. 837).
But warm water was provided in the public baths (IX.8; Mau, ‘Bäder’, RE ii.2
(1896) 2743–4, Ginouvès, Balaneutikè 135–6, 204–5, 216–17) and could be made
available at home (Ginouvès 177–8). Bathing in cold water was a sign of lacon-
ism (Plu. Alc. 23.3). To forbid warm water for one day only is a poor demon-
stration of ponhr©a. In any case, ‘the day of Poseidon’ (Poeidäno V) is not an
intelligible date. Hence Poeideäno Casaubon. Posideon is the coldest month
(December-January), and to forbid warm water during the whole of this month
is suitably reprehensible. But Poeideäno cannot stand with t¦i . . . ¡mrai,
which Darvaris changed clumsily to di ì Âlou . . . mhn», and Ast more deftly
deleted (a reason for its intrusion was suggested in the preceding note). For
the gen. (and the spelling Poid- not Poeid-), III.3n. The art., omitted with
the name of the month at III.3, is often added: HP 3.5.1 toÓ Qarghliäno,
4.11.5, 4.15.3, Arist. HA 597 a 24, D. 33.23, 42.5. In aÉtn toÓ Poideäno
¾hmrai (Edmonds 1908; the same without aÉtn Bury), aÉtn is badly
placed and ¾hmrai conveys inappropriate emphasis (contrast X.9, XXI.10).
5 kaª ugkaqhmnoi dein¼ perª toÓ natnto e«pe±n: he addresses peo-

ple who are sitting together (with him); for plural part. without art., VI.2–3n.
ugkaqhmnoi (Schwartz before Herwerden) is far preferable to ugkaqmeno
(V), ‘sitting together (with others unspecified) he addresses (others unspeci-
fied)’, which would be unlike the kind of introductory nom. part. illustrated
on VII.8. The people who are sitting together are perhaps the audience in
the Ecclesia (XI.3n., LSJ ugkqhmai i). toÓ natnto is probably not ‘one
who has just left’ ( Jebb; LSJ b.ii.1), but ‘one who has risen to speak’ (XII.9n.);
<x>anatnto (Cobet 1874) is quite unwanted. e«pe±n without object or
adverb is unobjectionable (Arist. EN 1125 a 5–6 oÎte . . . perª aËtoÓ re± oÎte
perª trou), and <kakä> or <kak> e«pe±n (Casaubon) and e«pe±n <kak>
(Edmonds 1929) feebly anticipate the language of the following sentence.
kaª rcn ge e«lhjÜ m pocqai mhd toÆ o«ke©ou aÉtoÓ
loidor¦ai: for rcn . . . e«lhjÛ, CP 3.1.2, 4.1.3, HP 7.11.3, Pl. Lg. 723e,
And. 3.40, Aeschin. 1.11, Men. Pk. 165. Perhaps d for ge (VII.4n.). Not <toÓ>
toÆ (Schneider before Ussing, Cobet 1874), since <toÓ> is both misplaced
(its place is before mhd) and needless (LSJ pcw ii.3). For the order toÆ
o«ke©ou aÉtoÓ, XIII.10n. Since Vac has loidore±ai not (as reported) -e±qai,
there is less likelihood in to± o«ke©oi (Ast) . . . loidore±qai (cf. VI.2).
6 kaª ple±ta perª tän j©lwn kaª o«ke©wn kak e«pe±n kaª perª tän
teteleuthk»twn, <t¼> kakä lgein pokalän ktl.: without the added
article, we have two coordinated infin. phrases (kak e«pe±n kaª . . . kakä
497
COMMENTARY
lgein), which offend by their pleonasm and change of tense. Bloch deleted
kaª . . . e«pe±n, Hanow 1860 kakä lgein, Diels (wrongly imputing the deletion
to Hanow) kak lgein (which leaves ple±ta to be taken with kakä lgein,
impossibly). Further, pokalän cries out for an explicit object. To take kakä
lgein as that object (Foss, Jebb, Immisch 1897, al.) eliminates the faults of
pleonasm and change of tense. But the art. (contemplated by Hanow 1860
before Herwerden) is indispensable. As a further gain, the infin. phrase sup-
plies toÓto with a precise point of reference. <tn> kakolog©an (Edmonds
1929) achieves the same ends less plausibly. aÉt¼ kalän (Herwerden) places the
demonstrative in an impossible position and leaves the pleonasm untouched.
A ‘definition’ of kakolog©a by the Kakol»go himself is an apt ending. For
the order (perª tän j©lwn + verb + kaª perª tän teteleuthk»twn) see on
V.9 palaitr©dion kon©tran con kaª jairitrion.
perª tän j©lwn kaª o«ke©wn is like IV.3 to± . . . j©loi kaª o«ke©oi
(XVIII.7n.). But tän <aËtoÓ> j©lwn (Herwerden) or o«ke©wn <tän
autoÓ> (Hanow) would make a clearer contrast with preceding toÆ o«ke©ou
aÉtoÓ. Both kak lgein and the commoner kakä lgein (I.2) normally take
acc. object. For per© + gen., Lys. 8.16 perª Ëmän aÉtän lgete kakä.
A law against speaking ill of the dead, attributed to Solon, was in force in
the fourth century (D. 20.104, 40.49, Plu. Sol. 21.1 ; MacDowell, Law 126–7).
The same prohibition was attributed to Chilon (D.L. 1.70). Cf. Shakespeare,
2 Henry IV, I.i.98 ‘And he doth sin that doth belie the dead’.
parrh©an kaª dhmokrat©an kaª leuqer©an: freedom of speech, democ-
racy, and liberty are a naturally linked trio (Hansen, Athenian Democracy 73–85).
Similar euphemistic language: XXIX.4 t¼n ponhr¼n . . . e«pe±n leÅqeron,
Isoc. 7.20 ¡ge±qai tn mn kola©an dhmokrat©an, tn d paranom©an
leuqer©an, tn d parrh©an «onom©an, 12.131 dhmokrat©an oÉ tn . . .
nom©zouan tn mn kola©an leuqer©an e²nai, tn d ì xou©an Âti boÅleta©
ti poie±n eÉdaimon©an; more generally, Th. 3.82.4–5, Arist. Rh. 1367 a 33–b 3,
Sal. Cat. 52.11, Quint. Inst. 3.7.25, Tac. Ag. 30.5, Plu. 56b–e.
498
XXIX
THE FRIEND OF VILLAINS
Introductory note
The adj. jilop»nhro is found in Arist. EN 1165 b 16 (cited on epil.), Din. fr. 42
Conomis, Ph. De Abr. 21, 199 (4.6, 44 Cohn-Wendland), Plu. Alc. 24.5, and is
wrongly substituted by Immisch for ponhr»jilo (antonym of crht»jilo
Rh. 1361 b 38) in Arist. Pol. 1314 a 1. Related compounds are jilom»cqhro
(Philonid. 15), jil»crhto (X. Mem. 2.9.4), miop»nhro (D. 21.218, Aeschin.
1.69, 2.171, Arist. fr. 611.20 Rose, Men. Dysc. 388; title of a play by Antiph.).
ponhr» was a convenient label to stick on a political or legal opponent.
And so jiloponhr©a is not necessarily a liking for behaviour which violates an
agreed moral code but may rather be a liking for a cause of which you happen
to disapprove. For the oligarch, ponhr©a is a virtual synonym of democracy.
Alcibiades was ready to return from exile p ì ½ligarc©ai . . . kaª oÉ ponhr©ai
oÉd dhmokrat©ai (Th. 8.47.2). The charge of jiloponhr©a may be incurred
by the d¦mo itself: jhmª oÔn gwge t¼n d¦mon t¼n ìAqnhi gignÛkein
o¯tine crhto© e«i tän politän kaª o¯tine ponhro©· gignÛkonte d
toÆ mn j©in aÉto± pithde©ou kaª umj»rou jiloÓi, kn ponhroª
åi, toÆ d crhtoÆ mioÓi mllon ([X.] Ath. 2.19). The speaker of D. 25
warns the jury that sympathy for his opponent will be tantamount to jilo-
ponhr©a (1 pro©eqai ponhr©an, 2 toÆ ponhroÆ jile±n, 7, 43). Similarly
(with a stronger verb) Hyp. Phil. 10 e« creqe täi Ëj ì Ëmän ¾mologoumnw
ponhräi kriqnti, £ kr©nein kakä d»xete £ ponhrän nqrÛpwn piqume±n
(cf. piqum©a in the def.). For further illustration of the uses of ponhr»,
R. A. Neil, The Knights of Aristophanes (Cambridge 1901) 206–8; on ‘the use
of moral terminology to denote class and/or political alignment’, R. Brock,
Historia 90 (1991) 163.
The ponhro© with whom the Filop»nhro associates include people who
have lost cases in court (§2), others standing trial (§5), democratic politicians
(§5), and general riff-raff (§6). Only once is he given a motive: by associating
with people who have lost cases he will broaden his experience and become
more formidable (§2). He is sour, cynical, and perverse, supporting ponhr©a
more by speech than by action. He plays devil’s advocate, and tries to put the
ponhr» in a good light. First he manipulates terminology: he claims that the
conventional polarisation ponhr»/crht» is misconceived (§3); he further
claims that a particular man has been wrongly labelled ponhr», and he
proposes more flattering alternative names for him (§4). Then he rehabilitates
this man, who has been (or is liable to be) misunderstood, and (if viewed in
the proper light) will be seen to be acting in the public interest (§5). Finally
499
COMMENTARY
he adopts a more actively sinister role, as leader of a disreputable gang, with

whom he gets up to no good in court (§6).
[1 ] Definition
piqum©a kak©a (cf. D. 25.48 ¯na . . . mhdeª zhlo± mhd ì piqum¦i kak©a) defines
ponhr©a better than jiloponhr©a: the Filop»nhro likes ponhr©a, but does
not desire it. But the noun (which recurs in def. XXX) is not more surprising
than the verb in Hyp. Phil. 10 ponhrän nqrÛpwn piqume±n (Introd. Note).
¾mopqeia (Edmonds 1929) ‘sympathy with’ (as Arist. fr. 101 Rose) pays the
writer too high a compliment.
2 [ti] toi»de ti: I.2n., XVII.2n.

ntugcnein to± ¡tthmnoi kaª dhmo©ou gäna Ýjlhk»i: for to±
¡tthmnoi, I.2n. The second participial phrase amplifies the first, explaining
the nature of the defeat (VI.4n.). There is no contrast here between private suits,
lost by sycophantic prosecutors, and public cases ( Jebb). Conjecture (some of
which is designed to introduce such a contrast) is misconceived: dhmo©ou
gäna after ¡tthmnoi Ast, to± <d©kai kaª dia©tai> Meier 1850, to±
<d©ka> Schneider before Hartung (Immisch 1897 is wrong to ascribe <«d©a
d©ka> to Hottinger, who said only ‘ich verstehe . . . «d©an d©khn’), [¡tthm-
noi ka©] Cobet 1874, timwmnoi Unger 1888. A public case (dhm»io gÛn
Aeschin. 1.2, 3.56, Lycurg. 7, 46, Hyp. Eux. 4, [Arist.] Ath. 67.1 ; dhmo©a d©kh
X. Mem. 2.9.5, D. 18.210, law in D. 46.26, Arist. Pol. 1320a 12) concerned an
offence which affected the community as a whole, as opposed to a private case
(dio gÛn D. 50.1, Din. 2.22, [Arist.] Ath. 67.1 ; «d©a d©kh e.g. D. 21.25), which
affected individuals only. See Harrison 2.75–6, MacDowell, Law 57–8 and on
D. 21.25, Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law 98 n. 1. The loser of a public case (it
is implied) is a greater villain than the loser of a private case.
kaª Ëpolambnein, n toÅtoi cr¦tai, mpeir»tero geneqai kaª
joberÛtero: he will learn the tricks of the trade from his convicted asso-
ciates, and people will be afraid to prosecute him because of his expertise and
the company he keeps. No need for toioÅtoi (Meier 1850), or rather to±
toioÅtoi (§5, XXVIII.2).
3 kaª pª to± crhto± e«pe±n Þ † g©netai kaª jhªn† Þ oÉde© ti crht»:
crht» is the commonest antonym of ponhr» (e.g. S. Ph. 437, Ar. Eq. 1274–5,
Ra. 1455–6, Ec. 177–8, Pl. 92–6, 490–1, 502–3, Lys. 20.10, Isoc. 1.22, Pl. Ap.
25c, Prt. 313a, X. Mem. 1.3.3, [X.] Ath. passim, Hyp. Lyc. 18, D. 19.190, 21.83,
25.48, Aeschin. 1.30, 3.75, Eub. 115.11 –15, Men. Sam. 142, fr. 699, 704, 753,
Antiph. 203.3–4); Dover, Greek Popular Morality 65, 296. p© is ‘against’, ‘in
500
XXIX: THE FRIEND OF VILLAINS
reference to’ (LSJ p© b.i.1.c), not ‘over the grave of’ (Edmonds; b.i.1.b). There
is no plausible emendation. Not “ íW ge lgetai” (Unger 1888) nor “ ë W
ja©netai” (Diels), since, after plural crhto±, the subject of a singular verb
will not be personal (the so-called crht») but impersonal, and ‘In the case
of good men he says “As it is said” or “As it appears”’ are not acceptable. j¦ai
(Schneider) for jh©n is unwelcome so soon after e«pe±n. Other proposals: pª
tän crhtän e«pe±n [Þ g©netai] Darvaris, Þ pª khj¦in Þ Madvig 1868,
a«cro± for crhto± Ribbeck 1870, Þ Ëpokr©nontai kaª jÅei Herwerden,
Þ g©netai kat jÅin oÉdeª crht» Immisch 1897, Þ <oÉ> g©gnetai
kaª [jh©n] Fraenkel and Groeneboom (jh©n del. Ussing), pr»jai for kaª
jh©n Meiser, “ ë W g©netai” kaª “íW jain” <kaª> Þ Edmonds 1929.
kaª ¾mo©ou pnta e²nai: he is not saying that everyone is ponhr» (Stein
257 n. 3), but that, just as no one is crht», equally no one is ponhr»
(Introd. Note); cf. Bühler on Zen. ii.9 <>panq ì Âmoia (add Men. Sam. 366,
as punctuated by M. Gronewald, ZPE 107 (1995) 58–9, followed by Arnott).
He proceeds to redefine ponhr» in the next sentence, and shows that it is
an inadequate term. For the change of construction to acc. and infin. see on
III.3 kaª tn qlattan ktl. We might have expected ¾mo©ou gr ktl. (like
§4 <e²nai> gr ktl.).
kaª pikäyai d “ ë W crht» ti”: cf. uncompounded kÛptein II.4,
VII.10; pik¦yai (V) is indefensible. crht» is often ironical: Ar. Nu. 8, Pl.
Tht. 166a, D. 18. 30, 89, 318, 23.169, 24.200, 58.29, 32, Din. 2.8, Men. Asp.
75, Epit. 1066, Sam. 408, fr. 20, Herod. 3.26. Ariston lists it among the çmata
mj©bola which are in the repertoire of the erwn (fr. 14, vii Wehrli). Phocion
was accorded the title crht» by decree of the Ecclesia (L. A. Tritle, Phocion
the Good (London 1988) 143).
4 kaª t¼n ponhr¼n d e«pe±n leÅqeron, n boÅlhta© ti e« p< . . .: for
e«pe±n ‘call’, V.2n. leÅqero ‘free’, ‘independent’, is euphemistic for ‘irre-
sponsible’ (similarly XXVIII.6 leuqer©a euphemistic for slander), rather than
equivalent to ‘aggressive’, ‘self-seeking’ (Dover, Greek Popular Morality 116). e«
p<e±ran lqe±n> (Naber) would be comparable to E. Hcld. 309, Th. 2.41.3,
7.21.4, D. 60.18; cf. LSJ pe±ra i.2. Not e« p<e±ran labe±n> (Immisch 1897);
the correct expression is pe±ran l- (XIII.9n.). Nothing else appeals: n pou
loid<or>¦ta© ti (or n <dia>bllhta© ti) e« p<onhr©an> Coray,
n <d> boÅlhta© ti e« p<onhr©an aÉt¼n diabllein kaª loidore±n>
[ka©] Darvaris, eÔ kope±n Hartung, <kaª> n boÅlhta© ti e« p<onhr¼n
pote©neqai> [ka©] Foss 1858 (p<onhr¼n> iam Amadutius), w kr©nein
Ribbeck 1870, e« p<lon kope±n> Immisch 1923.
kaª t mn lla ¾mologe±n lhq¦ Ëpr aÉtoÓ lgeqai Ëp¼ tän
nqrÛpwn, nia d † gnoe±n† j¦ai· <e²nai> gr aÉt¼n ktl.: ‘(He says
that) some things he does not know’ (not ‘does not believe’, Rusten) is no proper
501
COMMENTARY
antithesis to ‘he agrees that the other comments are true’. Even with a change
of subject (gnoe±qai Schneider, gnoe±n aÉtoÅ Bloch), the verb remains
unsuitable: we are concerned here not with knowledge but with terminology.
Corruption at the beginning of the following clause increases our uncertainty.
j¦ai gr (V) is unacceptable, since a clause introduced by explanatory gr
(IV.10n.) wants no verb of speech. j¦ai gr <n> aÉt»n (Cobet 1874) calls
(impossibly as things stand) for ‘them’ as subject of the infin. (‘they would say
he was . . .’, sc. if they knew the truth). jÅei or jÓnai (Petersen) and jan¦nai
(Unger 1888) are inappropriate. We might substitute e²nai for j¦ai (Diels,
who wrongly ascribes the proposal to Schneider). Then (in place of gnoe±n)
either naneÅein (Navarre 1918) or ntilgein (Navarre 1924) would give a rea-
sonable antithesis to ¾mologe±n. For the former (‘pour le reste fait ses réserves’)
cf. XXIII.5 naneÅein . . . oÉ dÅnaqai (‘say no’ to a request), X. Cyr. 1.6.13
kaª toÓto nneuon (‘answered no to this question too’, synonymous with pre-
ceding pjha). But addition of <e²nai> after j¦ai (Foss 1858) is at least
as likely as replacement of j¦ai by e²nai. For Ëpr ‘concerning’ see XX.8n.;
per© (Darvaris before Cobet 1874) is needless. There is no justification for such
wholesale rewriting as nia d gnoe±n j¦ai· kaª pikyaqai d Þ crht»
ti, kaª diate©neqai d [Ëpr aÉtoÓ] Þ . . . ¬kanwtrwi· e²nai gr aÉt¼n
ktl. (Ribbeck 1870).
eÉju kaª jiltairon kaª pidxion: the three epithets are straightforward
words of praise, but here (as applied to the ponhr») euphemistic – ‘smart’ (too
clever by half), ‘loyal’ (he sticks by his disreputable associates), ‘shrewd’ (tricky).
The first two sometimes have less than complimentary undertones. eÉju
‘well endowed by nature’, ‘naturally gifted’ (e.g. Arist. EN 1114 b 8, Po. 1455 a 32,
Rh. 1410b 8), comes to mean ‘clever’ (Alex. 37.4 ojit eÉju, 140.13) and
‘quick at making smart points’ (Isoc. 7.49 toÆ eÉtraplou . . . kaª toÆ
kÛptein dunamnou, oÍ nÓn eÉjue± proagoreÅouin, 15.284 toÆ mn ge
bwmoloceuomnou kaª kÛptein kaª mime±qai dunamnou eÉjue± kaloÓi,
pro¦kon t¦ prohgor©a taÅth tugcnein toÆ rita pr¼ retn
pejuk»ta, Theopomp. FGrH 115 f 162 §n . . . kaª jÅei bwmol»co . . .
ca©rwn . . . tän nqrÛpwn to± eÉjui kaloumnoi kaª t gloia lgoui
kaª poioÓi). jiltairo should be viewed in the light of Th. 3.82.4 t»lma . . .
l»gito ndre©a jiltairo nom©qh (loyalty to faction or party) and the
continuing use of ta±ro/taire©a for personal support in (to one’s oppo-
nents) a disreputable cause (e.g. D. 21.20, 139; XXVI.3n.). pidxio is compli-
mentary in a range of senses, such as ‘dexterous’, ‘adroit’, ‘tactful’, ‘shrewd’:
e.g. Arist. EN 1128a 17–19 toÓ . . . pidex©ou tª toiaÓta lgein kaª koÅein
o³a täi pieike± kaª leuqer©wi rm»ttei, 1171 b 2–3 paramuqhtik¼n . . . ¾
j©lo kaª t¦i Àyei kaª täi l»gwi, n §i pidxio, Men. Dysc. 105–6 jiln-
qrwpo . . . pidxi» te, 515–16 pidex©w | a«te±n, Aeschin. 1.178, 2.124
502
(cf. 2.47 pidexi»th). The first and last combined, Plb. 5.39.6 pr¼ t
¾mil©a pidxio kaª pr¼ pragmtwn o«konom©an eÉju, 11.24a.4.
The Attic spelling is -ju (Darvaris before Hanow 1860) not -ju¦ (V):
L. Dindorf in TGL i.2 (1831 –56) s.u. aÉtoju, KB 1.433–4, Schwyzer 1.189,
Meisterhans 150, Threatte 2.174, 295, 299, Mastronarde on E. Ph. 821 (adden-
dum p. 645).
diate©neqai: X.14n.
5 kaª eÎnou d e²nai aÉtäi n kklh©ai lgonti £ pª dikathr©ou kri-

nomnwi: a specific individual is described in §4–§5, and the same demonstra-
tive is consistently used of him (aÉtoÓ . . . aÉt»n . . . aÉtoÓ . . . aÉt»n . . .
aÉt»n). Therefore aÉtäi must replace täi (V). täi <ponhräi> (Navarre
1924) is heavy-handed, a«t©wi (Latte ap. Steinmetz) unsuitable.
The Filop»nhro supports him when he is speaking in the Ecclesia; that
is, when he is playing a political role. He also supports him when he is on trial
in court. The rest of §5 focuses on these two areas, politics and law, but in
reverse order. We see the support first in court (kaª pr¼ <toÆ> kaqhmnou
ktl.), then in politics (kaª j¦ai ktl.). lgonti is apt (he speaks in the Ecclesia,
therefore he is active in politics) and must not be changed (legcqnti Orelli (ed.
Isoc. Antid. (Zurich 1814) 267), wrong tense; kinduneÅonti Meier 1850, wrong
place for danger; l»gon did»nti Diels), or supplemented (<Ëpr autoÓ> l-
Nast), or deleted (Schneider).
For n kklh©ai, Pl. Grg. 452e, 456b, X. HG 2.2.16–17, IV.2n. (normally n
t¦i kk-, as XXVI.4). For pª dikathr©ou, Is. fr. 4.15 Thalheim, Plb. 12.8.5
(pª toÓ d- Is. 5.1, 19, 25, 29, Hyp. Lyc. 1, Phil. 7, D. 29.16, 18, 48.50, 58.32, 40,
59.66, Aeschin. 1.114). For the gen. (Darvaris before Meier 1850), Wyse on Is.
5.1 ; dat. -©w (V) is a simple error of assimilation (see on V.9 kaª aÉla©an ktl.).
kaª pr¼ <toÆ> kaqhmnou d e«pe±n dein¼ Þ “OÉ de± t¼n ndra ll
t¼ prgma kr©neqai”: XXVIII.5 ugkaqhmnoi . . . e«pe±n might suggest
that the art. is dispensable. But o¬ kaqmenoi is normal for both audience in
Ecclesia and jurors in court (XI.3n.); pr¼ <toÆ para>kaq- (Foss 1858) is
therefore less good, and pr¼ <toÆ ug>kaq- (Cobet 1874), though possible
(XXVIII.5n.), is needless. For the word order (kaª . . . d with prep., art., part.
interposed) see on I.5 Þ oÉ pwle± ktl. The words t¼ prgma kr©neqai
suggest that the setting here is court rather than Ecclesia (see on XII.5 toÓ
prgmato ¢dh kekrimnou). To plead that ‘It is not the man who should be
judged but the facts of the case’ is tantamount to pleading that his known
bad character or his criminal record should be ignored. t¼ prgma ll t¼n
ndra and nÓn de± . . . ll <m> (both Unger 1888) miss the point.
kaª j¦ai aÉt¼n kÅna e²nai toÓ dmou (Ëlakte±n gr aÉt¼n toÆ
dikoÓnta): riddling identification followed by explanation (XX.9n.).
503
COMMENTARY
‘Guard-dog of the people’ was a familiar soubriquet for democratic politi-

cians (D. 25.40 t© oÔn oÕt» ti; kÅwn n D©a, ja© tine, toÓ dmou.
podap»; o³o oÍ mn a«titai lÅkou e²nai m dknein, d jhi jult-
tein pr»bat ì aÉt¼ kateq©ein, Plu. Dem. 23.5 aËt¼n mn ekae kaª toÆ
Æn aËtäi kuªn Ëpr toÓ dmou macomnoi, ìAlxandron d t¼n Maked»na
mon»lukon prohg»reuen), perhaps originating with Cleon (Ar. Eq. 1017,
1023, V. 895, Olson on Pax 313–15). In X. Mem. 2.9.2 Socrates recommends that
Criton should maintain a human guard-dog, Âti qloi te kaª dÅnaito oÓ
perÅkein toÆ piceiroÓnta dike±n e. Cf. IV.9n., J. Taillardat, Les images
d’Aristophane (Paris 1962) 403–5, S. Lilja, Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry (Helsinki
1976) 70, C. Mainoldi, L’image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne (Paris
1984) 156–60, M. R. Christ, The Litigious Athenian (Baltimore and London 1998)
149–50.
The riddle is given point by Ëlakte±n (for julttein V), a brilliant conjec-
ture, which sustains to the fullest degree the identification of dog and man.
For the construction with acc. object, LSJ ii; for the idea, Cic. S.Rosc. 57 (of
accusers) alii uestrum anseres sunt qui tantum modo clamant, nocere non possunt, alii
canes qui et latrare et mordere possunt, D.Chr. 9.3 Ëlakte±n . . . kaª mceqai to±
kakoÅrgoi. For ‘barking’ orators, also Eup. 220, Cic. de Orat. 3.138, Brut. 58.
julttein (V) is not synonymous with perÅkein in X. loc. cit., and so cannot
mean ‘keep off’ (Edmonds). The only meanings which might be applicable are
‘watch for’, ‘keep a watch on’ (LSJ b.2.a); thus ‘obseruare’ (Ussing), ‘keeps an
eye on’ ( Jebb), ‘is vigilant against’ (Rusten), are legitimate translations. But a
guard-dog protects by deterring offenders, not by keeping watch for/on them.
The only natural object for julttein, when ‘dog’ is subject, is the person
or property which is being protected, as IV.9 oÕto julttei t¼ cwr©on
kaª tn o«k©an and D. 25.40 (above). Further, ‘guard-dog of the people’ is an
identification which has lost the capacity to puzzle and appears not to call for
explanation. If it is to be explained at all, it must be explained by something
less obvious than ‘he keeps a watch for/on those who wrong it’. By the side of
Ëlakte±n, all other conjectures are tame: dikoumnou Schweighäuser 1802,
jultteqai Wendland, <pr¼> toÅ Diels.
kaª e«pe±n Þ “OÉc xomen toÆ Ëpr tän koinän unacqeqhomnou
ktl.”: for Þ introducing direct speech, XXVI.4n.; the art. toÅ, XVIII.2n.;
tän koinän, XXVI.4n. Perhaps unacqeomnou (L. Dindorf in TGL i.2
(1831 –56) s.u. cqomai, Cobet 1854), as prescribed by Moer. a 36 (p. 73 Hansen)
cqetai ìAttiko©, cqeqetai í Ellhne. The middle form is guaranteed
by metre in Ar. Nu. 865, 1441 (cqeqh- u.l. in both passages), Au. 84, and
attested in Pl. Hp.Ma. 292e, R. 603e; the passive form is attested in Pl. Grg.
506c, And. 3.21, Aeschin. 3.242 (u.l. unacqh»meno), X. Cyr. 8.4.10. Cf. W. G.
Rutherford, The New Phrynichus (London 1881) 194–5, Dodds on Pl. Grg. 506c. It
504
is futile to look for a different verb: unapecqhomnou Meier 1850, pecqh-

Navarre 1920, unepacqiqh- Edmonds 1929.
6 dein¼ d ka©: VI.9n., VII.6n.

protat¦ai jaÅlwn kaª unedreÓai n dikathr©oi pª ponhro±
prgmai: we move from patronage of an individual to patronage of a group.
This is a rare, perhaps unique, allusion to an organised faction operating in a
court of law (A. L. Boegehold, Hesperia 29 (1960) 401 n. 17, R. K. Sinclair, Democ-
racy and Participation in Athens (Cambridge 1988) 143, Hansen, Athenian Democracy
284). protat¦ai has a quasi-official tone, for ironic effect; cf. VI.9 pollän
gora©wn trathge±n. It does not mean ‘come to the defence of’ (Rusten); nor
‘be a protth (of metics)’, with either jaÅlwn <meto©kwn> (Meier 1850)
or jaÅlwn sc. meto©kwn (Edmonds 1929, contemplated also by D. Whitehead,
The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (PCPhS Suppl. 4, 1977) 67 n. 108). unedreÓai
‘sit in council’ has a similarly ironic tone. unhgor¦ai (Immisch 1897), giv-
ing an expression comparable to Isoc. 1.37 mhdenª ponhräi prgmati mte
par©tao mte unhg»rei, makes him an advocate for disreputable causes.
This is compatible with what follows (he will then be pictured in two roles,
first as advocate, next, on a different occasion, as juror). But unedreÓai har-
monises better with protat¦ai jaÅlwn: he sits with the riff-raff whose
leader he is. And -hgor¦-/-edreÓ- is an unlikely corruption. For p©, LSJ p©
b.iii.2 (‘of an end or purpose’).
kaª kr©in kr©nwn kdceqai t Ëp¼ tän ntid©kwn leg»mena pª t¼
ce±ron: cf. D. 21.64 kr©neto tn perª ìWrwpoÓ kr©in qantou (‘he was being
tried on a capital charge concerning O.’), 24.151 t . . . kr©nonta t kr©ei
pa t dikatri ì t©n (‘the courts decide’), Pl. R. 360e (in a non-legal
context, ‘make a decision’). He is not acting as a solitary judge or arbitrator,
but deciding which side to support in a court of law. For kdceqai . . . pª
t¼ ce±ron (‘react negatively to what is said by both parties’, Rusten), Arist.
Rh. 1389b 21 ti . . . kakoqeia t¼ pª t¼ ce±ron Ëpolambnein pnta (‘put
the worst construction on everything’), 1416b 11 pª t¼ ce±ron klambnonti
(def. I n., LSJ kdcomai i.5). He refuses to see the good side of anything. This
represents a slight shift in focus. Now he sees ponhr©a everywhere.
[7] Epilogue
Other epilogues begin with t¼ Âlon (I.6n.) and end with a proverb (epil. I n.).
This proverb (H. Od. 17.218 Þ a«eª t¼n ¾mo±on gei qe¼ (u.l. Þ) t¼n ¾mo±on)
is frequently cited (Pl. Lys. 214a, Arist. EE 1235 a 7, Rh. 1371 b 16, [Arist.] MM
1208b 10, Diogenian. v.16 (CPG 1.253), Greg. Cypr. i.15 (CPG 2.94)) or alluded
505
COMMENTARY
to (Pl. Smp. 195b, Gorg. 510b, Arist. EN 1155 a 34, Men. Sic. fr. 9 Arnott (cf. fr. 376
Koerte, Sic. fr. 6 Kassel; C. W. Müller, RhM 107 (1964) 285–7), Call. fr. 178.9–
10, Hp. Nat.Puer. 17 (7.496 Littré), Aristaenet. 1.10 init., Lib. Ep. 1333f, Apostol.
XII.74a (CPG 2.561)); Otto, Sprichwörter 264, C. W. Müller, Gleiches zu Gleichem:
Ein Prinzip frühgriechischen Denkens (Wiesbaden 1965) passim (this passage, 160 n.
30), B. Gygli-Wyss, Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch (Göttingen 1966)
58 n. 4, Powell on Cic. Sen. 7. Possibly the epilogue reflects Arist. EN 1165 b 16–
17 jilop»nhron . . . oÉ cr e²nai oÉd ì ¾moioÓqai jaÅlwi· erhtai (1155 b 7)
d ì Âti t¼ Âmoion täi ¾mo©wi j©lon.
506
XXX
T H E S H A B B Y P RO F I T E E R
Introductory note
The A«crokerd is not ‘Avaricious’ ( Jebb), nor ‘Mean’ (Edmonds). He is a
man who acts disgracefully by taking advantage of others. He does this by giving
short measure (§2, §5, §7, §11, §13), claiming more than his share (§4, §9, §16),
unreasonable borrowing of money (§3, §7), using others’ belongings to save on
his own (§8, §10, §17, §20), ungenerous avoidance of expenditure (§6, §14), selling
presents (§7) and not giving them (§19), and imposing inappropriate charges
(§15, §18). In taking advantage of others, he resembles the ìAna©cunto (IX);
in the pettiness of his savings, the Mikrol»go (X); in his mean-spiritedness,
the ìAneleÅqero (XXII). See the Introd. Notes to IX, X, XXII. The victims of
his economies and deceptions are not strangers but members of his immediate
circle: friends (§5, §12, §19), acquaintances (§10, §17, §20), guests (§2, §3, §4),
sons (§6, §14), slaves (§7, §9, §11, §15, §16), fellow-ambassadors (§7), fellow-
bathers (§8), school-teachers (§14), members of his phratry (§16), members of
his dining-club (§18). Cf. Millett, ‘Sale, credit and exchange’ 184, id. Lending
and Borrowing 117, with n. 14.
This accords with Aristotle, for whom a«crokrdeia is small-scale gain from
inappropriate sources (EN 1122 a 1 –12). Dicers, for example, are a«crokerde±,
since they profit at the expense of friends (p¼ tän j©lwn kerda©nouin, o³
de± did»nai). Similarly a«crokrdeia (alongside neleuqer©a) is t¼ kerda©nein
p¼ mikrän £ a«crän £ p¼ duntwn, o³on pentwn £ teqneÛtwn (Rh.
1383 b 22–3).
[1 ] Definition
periou©a (V) is no more acceptable here than in def. XXII. It cannot be
defended by taking krdo as ‘desire of gain’ ( Jebb, on the strength of S. Ant.
222). The only plausible correction is piqum©a (Bloch, before Foss 1836, Herw-
erden, Cobet 1874), as in def. XXIX, even though the resulting sense is banal.
Not periou©a piqum©a (Schneider), peripo©hi (Foss 1836), periou©a <ti
pleonex©a> k- a«- <piqumhtik> (Holland 1897), propo©hi (Fraenkel
and Groeneboom).
2 toioÓt» <ti>: I.2n.

tiän rtou ¬kanoÆ m paraqe±nai: cf. X.11 tiän dhm»ta mikr
t kra k»ya paraqe±nai. For the bare introductory part. tiän (as §5
507
COMMENTARY
o«nopwlän), VII.8n.; for its absolute use, II.10, V.5; same corruption (q©wn
V), II.10. For rtou, IX.3n.
3 kaª dane©aqai par xnou par ì aËtäi katalÅonto: to borrow from

a guest is a clever strategem. The guest will not easily secure repayment if
he leaves Athens before the loan is repaid (Millett, Lending and Borrowing 277
n. 51). aËtäi (Edmonds 1908) rather than aÉ- (V); I.2n.
4 kaª dianmwn mer©da j¦ai d©kaion e²nai dimoir©an täi dianmonti d©doqai
kaª eÉqÆ aËtäi ne±mai: he is distributing portions (XVII.2n.) at a meal.
dimoir©an ‘double portion’ (X. HG 6.1.6, An. 7.2.36, 7.6.1, Ages. 5.1, Lac. 15.4,
Antiph. 81.5) is far more suitable in sense than d©moiron ‘two-thirds’ (Amadu-
tius), which in any case wants the article. The force of the compound dianmein
is maintained in the uncompounded ne±mai (Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides
18, Euripidea 84; J. Wills, Repetition in Latin Poetry (Oxford 1996) ch. 20).
5 kaª o«nopwlän kekramnon t¼n o²non täi j©lwi pod»qai: -pwlän (‘offer
for sale’) is contrasted with pod»qai (‘sell’); X.7n. For kekramnon ‘mixed
(with water)’, IV.6n., XIII.4n. Watering of wine by retailers: Alex. 9.4–5,
Hegesand. fr. 22 (4.417 Müller) ap. Ath. 431 d, Mart. 9.98, Luc. Herm. 59.
6 kaª pª qan thnikaÓta poreÅeqai gwn toÆ ËoÆ ¡n©k ì n: thnikaÓta
is correlative with ¡n©k ì n at X. Cyr. 7.1.9; with ¾phn©k ì n, S. Ph. 464–5;
with ¡n©ka, X. An. 4.1.5, D. 23.107; with Âtan, HP 3.9.5, S. OT 76, Ph. 505
(cf. El. 293–4), Ar. Pax 338, X. Lac. 3.1, D. 26.17. ¡n©k ì n dh (AB) will be
a corruption of thnikde (Needham), which is a corruption of thnikaÓta in
Alex. 91.2. thnikde is a very much rarer form and is not found correlative with
a temporal conjunction before Plb. (LSJ 1 ; add 27.15.14 Þ . . . t¼ thnikde).
In place of ¡n©ka (ABV) with present indic. we need ¡n©k ì n with subjunctive.
Present indic. with ¡n©ka is uncommon. The single example cited from the
classical period by LSJ ¡n©ka 1 (X. Cyr. 8.8.9) is an unhappy choice, since the
verb is ellipsed (Schwyzer 2.652). Such instances as occur are either historic
present (E. El. 541, Pl. Hp.Mi. 364e, X. An. 1.8.1) or refer to the immedi-
ate present and are correlative with nÓn (D. 10.30 nÓn ¡n©ka koÅete, 22.33,
S. El. 954, OC 772, Lys. 20.17, X. Cyr. 4.5.20) or indicate precisely synchronous
time (S. Tr. 83–5, E. Med. 1005, El. 1111, IA 348, fr. 26.3, Pl. R. 537b, Aeschin.
1.14, Arist. Pr. 962 a 18). ¡n©k ì n with subj. is very common: e.g. S. Ph. 310,
E. El. 426, Ar. Ach. 670, Nu. 618, V. 404, Pax 120, Au. 1095, Ra. 747, Pl. Sph.
266c, Phdr. 247b, X. HG 2.4.17, An. 3.5.18, Cyr. 1.2.4, 7.1.9 (correlative with
thnikaÓta), D. 1.3, 18.313; similarly Âtan IV.5, V.7, VII.4, 10, XI.3, XVI.11,
XVIII.7, XXII.6, 8, XXIV.8, XXVI.4, XXVII.15; pn V.10 (conj.), XVI.4
508
X X X : T H E S H A B B Y P RO F I T E E R
(conj.), XXIV.10. See further (on ¡n©ka) P. Monteil, La phrase relative en grec ancien
(Paris 1963) 295–8, A. Rijksbaron, Temporal and Causal Conjunctions in Ancient Greek
(Amsterdam 1976) 137–8. For the spelling ËoÅ, IX.5n.
pro±ka e«jräin: ‘let in free’, with the verb used as in Ar. V. 892
e«jromen ( jurors into court), D. 20.53 e«jroun t¼ trteuma. Corruption
(jiin AB, jaªn V) will have arisen by way of indic. e«p©jrain, which will
have been substituted for subj. when ¡n©k ì n became ¡n©ka. For present stem
-p©jrhmi, Arist. HA 541 b 11 e«pijrnai; for the various other forms of this
verb, Barrett on E. Hi. 866–7. jiin (or rather jiäin, reported from Laur.
80.23 (9 Wilson) by Landi (1900) 96) is unacceptable. The explanation of LSJ
j©hmi a.iv (‘suffer, permit . . . with inf. understood . . . sc. qeqai’) is founded
on a Herodotean locution, where the meaning is not ‘allow’ but ‘release, let
go’, with consec. infin. (Diggle, Euripidea 284–5). More pertinent instances of
j©hmi with infin. (in the sense ‘let free to’, virtually ‘allow to’) are listed in TGL
s.u. 2658. Stein cites one of them: X. Cyr. 1.2.2 p»lei je±ai paideÅein Âpw
ti qlei toÆ autoÓ pa±da kaª aÉtoÆ toÆ prebutrou Âpw qloui
digein, ‘cities leaving free (sc. each man) to educate his own children as each
man wishes, and the older men to behave as they wish’. But jiin in the
sense ‘allow (people to be spectators)’, with neither acc. nor infin. expressed,
would be a brachylogy without parallel for this verb, and the instances of
brachylogy to which Stein refers (KG 2.565) do little to commend it. Noth-
ing is gained by substituting jiin (Petersen; already mentioned as a u.l. by
Lycius) or jiäin (Hanow 1860). The infin. is no more readily understood
with this verb than it is with j-. In the instances cited by LSJ j©hmi a.ii.1.c
the verb whose infin. is to be understood appears elsewhere in the immediate
context.
o¬ qeatränai: the name (formed like e.g. ndrapodÛnh, boÛnh, ½yÛnh,
itÛnh, telÛnh; cf. C. D. Buck and W. Petersen, A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns
and Adjectives (Chicago 1945) 7–8, E. H. Rüedi, Vom ëEllanod©ka zum llan-
topÛlh . Eine Studie zu den verbalen Rektionskomposita auf -a /-h (diss. Zurich
1969) 164–9) is attested only here, and appears to stand for the person elsewhere
called qeatropÛlh (Ar. fr. 575; cf. ½pwrÛnh alongside ½pwropÛlh, both
‘fruiterer’) and more commonly rcitktwn (D. 18.28 and inscriptions; T. L.
Shear, Hesperia Suppl. 17 (1978) 57–8), the lessee to whom the state awarded the
contract for the maintenance of the theatre and who received the entrance fee.
See Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 266, M. Walton, ‘Financial arrangements for the
Athenian dramatic festivals’, Theatre Research International 2 (1977) 79–86, Csapo
and Slater 288–9, 295–7. The conjecture piqatron (Holland 1897), based
on pª qetrwn (V), is misguided (O. A. W. Dilke, ABSA 43 (1948) 130). About
free performances in the theatre (VI.4 pro±ka qewre±n refers to non-theatrical
shows) we know nothing.
509
COMMENTARY
7 kaª podhmän dhmo©ai: cf. Pl. Lg. 950d podhm¦ai . . . dhmo©ai . . .

tw kruxin £ prebe©ai £ ka© tii qewro±, D. 45.3 podhmoÓnto moÓ
dhmo©ai trihrarcoÓnto Ëm±n, 48.24. For the verb, XXIII.3n.
t¼ mn k t¦ p»lew j»dion okoi katalipe±n: for the structure of t¼ . . . k
t¦ p»lew j»dion and the use of k (‘money from the city’), KG 1.336 Anmerk.
3 (cf. VI.9 toÆ t»kou p¼ toÓ mpolmato). The transposition k t¦
p»lew t¼ ktl. (Stein, comparing XXIII.3 k t¦ p»lew podedhmhkÛ) is
injudicious. Travel allowances: e.g. Ar. Ach. 65–6 pmyaq ì ¡m Þ baila
t¼n mgan | miq¼n jronta dÅo dracm t¦ ¡mra, D. 19.158 tre± m¦na
Âlou podhmante kaª cil©a lab»nte dracm j»dion par ì Ëmän (1 1/2
drachmas per day); F. Poland, De Legationibus Graecorum publicis (diss. Leipzig
1885) 81 –7, D. Kienast, ‘Presbeia’ (§18 ‘Reisegelder’), RE Suppl. xiii (1973)
578–81, D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (Historia, Einzelschr.
22, Wiesbaden 1973) 74–7. Comparable examples of avarice: Cic. Pis. 86 nonne
sestertium centiens et octogiens . . . ex aerario tibi attributum Romae in quaestu reliquisti?,
Man. 37.
par d tän umprebeu»ntwn dane©aqai: part. umprebeu»ntwn as
D. 19.129, Aeschin. 3.81 (cf. X.3 tän undeipnoÅntwn). But umprebeutän
(AB) is no less good; umprebwn (Cobet 1874) is needless. There is nothing
to choose between dane©aqai (V) and dane©zeqai (AB). Aorist at §3 (of a
completed act of borrowing from a temporary visitor), present (‘be a borrower’
or, conative, ‘try to borrow’) at IX.2, 7 (cf. I.5 daneizomnou, VI.9 dane©zein).
See V.6n.
kaª täi koloÅqwi me±zon jort©on piqe±nai £ dÅnatai jrein: for täi
koloÅqwi, IX.3n. There is nothing to choose between me±zon jort©on piqe±-
nai (V) and pi- m- j- (AB). The variation might point to an original m- pi-
j- (§9n., II.3n.). For the situation, X. Mem. 3.13.6, Aeschin. 2.99, Juv. 3.251 –3,
and the opening scene of Ar. Ra.; for the expression, Prop. 3.9.5 turpe est, quod
nequeas (sc. ferre), capiti committere pondus.
kaª lcita pitdeia tän llwn parcein: cf. X.3 lciton . . . tän
undeipnoÅntwn, XIX.9 m»no tän llwn, Pl. R. 353a kllita tän llwn.
Sense, though not grammar (KG 2.308 (b), b), shows that tän llwn are the
other ambassadors, not the other attendants.
kaª <tän> xen©wn t¼ mro t¼ aËtoÓ paita pod»qai: AB (mis-
reported by Diels) have kaª xen©wn t¼, V has kaª xnon d. The art. is desirable
with xen©wn (d has <p¼ tän>), since here the word denotes not general
hospitality (as Aeschin. 2.39, 162) but the specific ‘presents’ which were cus-
tomarily given to and expected by ambassadors (LSJ xnio I.2; Poland (above)
112–14, Kienast (above) 566–73 (§14 ‘Ehrungen für fremde Gesandte’), Mosley
(above) 74, Stein 263–4). We might take d from V (kaª <tän> xen©wn d ktl.),
but not mro without art., since t¼ aËtoÓ calls for t¼ mro (XIV.5n.). Possible
alternatives are t¼ aËtoÓ mro and t¼ mro aËtoÓ (XIV.10n.). The use of
510
paita (again §9), instead of metaita (Ar. V. 972 toÅtwn metaite± t¼

mro), suggests that what he asks for he regards as his by right. Themistocles
was accused of selling food which he had been given (Plu. Them. 5.1), and for
doing the same Simonides was called k©mbix (for this word, Introd. Note to X)
and a«crokerd (Chamael. fr. 33 Wehrli). Cf. XXII.4, J. M. Bell, QUCC 28
(1978) 41 –3, 63–4.
8 kaª leij»meno n täi balane©wi [kaª] epa täi paidar©wi “apr»n

ge t¼ laion pr©w” täi llotr©wi le©jeqai: present part. leij»meno
sets the scene (VII.8n.); we do not want fut. leiy»meno (Hanow 1860). ka©
(wrongly defended by Stein) may not link such a part. to the temporal part.
epa. Contrast X.12 ½ywnän mhqn primeno, XIV.3, 11, XXV.4 koÅwn . . .
kaª ¾rän . . . epa (Ilberg: e²pe V), XXV.5, XXVII.9. For interpolation of ka©
(deleted before Darvaris and Ast by Lycius, who however read e«pe±n), VII.4n.
For leij»meno . . . le©jeqai, §13, XXI.6n.
In AB täi paidar©wi stands after the direct speech. This gives an intolerable
hyperbaton (it is tolerated by, among others, Stein, who adduces the mild
hyperbata mentioned in IX.8n.) and a hideous clash with the unrelated dat.
täi llotr©wi. V has either paidar©wi or paidrion, also after the direct
speech. paidrion is a voc. address in Ar. Pax 1288, Pl. 823, Men. Asp. 222,
Mis. 989 Arnott (459 Sandbach), fr. 210 (conj.); å paidrion (Reiske 1757) is
not found. In addresses to slaves pa± is much commoner than å pa± (Dickey,
Greek Forms of Address 202). See also on XX.7 å mmmh. But no voc. address
here is as natural as dat. of addressee after epa. The transposition was made
by Auberius before (as an alternative to å paidrion) Reiske 1757. For epa
(Cobet 1859), V.2n.; paidrion, XXII.10n.
pr©w (om. V) is better kept: ‘the oil you bought is rancid’ imputes blame
directly to the slave, while ‘the oil is rancid’ does not. The order (predicative
adj., art., verb) is the same as §5 kekramnon t¼n o²non pod»qai (KG 1.614–15,
Stein 265). For apr¼n laion (and the use of oil in the baths), XIX.6n.
9 kaª tän Ëp¼ tän o«ketän eËrikomnwn calkän n ta± ¾do±: same
order (art., prep. phrase, part., noun, prep. phrase) as IV.3 to± par ì aËtäi
rgazomnoi miqwto± n gräi and (without second prep. phrase) §18 tän
par ì autoÓ didomnwn xÅlwn, VII.7. Slight variations on this (prep. phrase
still before noun, but now after part.) are §16 t . . . kataleip»mena p¼
t¦ trapzh çajan©dwn ¡m©ea, XXII.4 toÆ . . . diakonoÓnta n to±
gmoi o«ko©tou. See KG 1.623–4, J. Vahlen, Gesammelte philologische Schriften
1 (Leipzig and Berlin 1911) 215–18. The word order of ABV does not conform
to this pattern: the two prep. phrases stand together at the end of the sequence,
but in reverse order in V and AB (Ëp¼ tän o«k- n ta± ¾- V, n ta± ¾- Ëp¼
tän o«k- AB). I take this variation for evidence that the more usual pattern
511
COMMENTARY
has been disturbed: Ëp¼ tän o«ketän omitted, written above the line or in
the margin, then restored in different places (II.3n.). For arguments against
o«ke©wn (V) see Stein 266; same corruption XX.7. For calkän, VI.4n.
dein¼ pait¦ai t¼ mro: §7n.
koin¼n e²nai ja t¼n ëErm¦n: cf. Men. Epit. 283–5 e« kaª bad©zwn eÕren
mì moª taÓta kaª | §n koin¼ ëErm¦, t¼ mn n oÕto lab[en n], | t¼ d ì
gÛ, 317, Arist. Rh. 1401 a 22, D.S. 5.75.1, Plu. 777d, Luc. Nau. 12, Sen. Ep. 119.1
quotiens aliquid inueni, non expecto donec dicas ‘in commune’; Leutsch-Schneidewin on
Diogenian. v.38 and Apostol. vii.94 (CPG 1.259, 2.420–1), Roscher, Lex.Myth.
s.u. ‘Hermes’ 2380–1, A. Kränzlein, Eigentum und Besitz im griechischen Recht
(Berlin 1963) 106–7, Gow and Page on Call. AP 12.149.3 (Hellenistic Epigrams
1089). For the coincident aor. part. ja, VII.3n.
10 kaª qo«mtion kdoÓnai plÓnai: in place of ¬mtion (V) the choice is between
qo«- (Meineke), as XXI.8, XXII.8, and t¼ ¬- (Navarre 1920), as XVIII.6,
XXVI.4, XXVII.5 (qo«- Meineke in all three). For kdoÓnai plÓnai, XXII.8n.
kaª crhmeno par gnwr©mou: IV.11 n. We can readily understand ¬m-
tion as object; <t¼> par (Navarre 1918) is heavy-handed.
jelkÅai ple©ou ¡mra w n paithq¦i: jelkÅai is possibly absolute,
‘delay’ (LSJ i.4), for which a partial analogy is Hdt. 7.167.1 pª tooÓto . . .
lgetai lkÅai tn Åtain (‘it is said that the conflict dragged on’), but
perhaps rather transitive, ‘drag on’, ‘cause to lag behind’, ‘postpone’, sc. ‘(the
return of ) the borrowed cloak’. This is suggested by a use of the passive found
in documentary papyri (LSJ i.4), such as PSI 350.4 (254/3 bc) jlketai t
½yÛnia ‘(the payment of ) the wage lags behind, is delayed’, and a related use
(LSJ ii.1) of the pass. part. exemplified by Hdt. 4.203.4 toÆ . . . pelkom-
nou (‘those lagging behind, the stragglers’) and Plb. 9.40.2 proqum©an . . .
jelkomnhn . . . kaª kaquteroÓan. The notion that he drags the cloak along
after him in wearing it (Ephipp. 19.4 emn¼ emnä clan©d ì lkwn, Anaxil.
18.2, Archipp. 48.2, Plu. Alc. 16.1 ; cf. Geddes 312) is not appropriate here.
[kaª t toiaÓta]: XIX.4n. AB have t d d toiaÓta (for d in spurious
passages, epil. I n.).
11 <kaª> Feidwne©wi mtrwi t¼n pÅndaka e«kekroumnwi: ‘Pheidonian

measures’ (FeidÛn(e)ia mtra Ephor. FGrH 70 f 115, [Arist.] Ath. 10.2, Poll.
10.179) were the standard of measurement introduced into the Peloponnese
by Pheidon of Argos (Hdt. 6.127.3). They were replaced at Athens by a more
generous standard, reputedly in the time of Solon (O. Viedebantt, Forschungen
zur Metrologie des Altertums (ASAW 34, 1917) 45–50, 66–8, Rhodes on Ath. 10.2).
Here the ‘Pheidonian measure’ must be the vessel which holds that obsolete
and ungenerous measure. The capacity of the vessel is further reduced, because
its bottom has been ‘knocked in’. It is therefore made of metal, as measuring
512
vessels sometimes were (M. Lang and M. Crosby, The Athenian Agora, x: Weights,
Measures and Tokens (Princeton 1964) 40–1). It is better to replace kkekroumnwi
(AB; a gap in place of the prefix in V) with e«k- (Casaubon) than with gk- (also
Casaubon; cf. IV.12), in the light of Pherecr. 110 laboÓa mn t¦ co©niko
t¼n pÅndak ì e«krouen. There xkrouen (Bothe) is needless and improba-
ble: co±nix is a measuring vessel and it serves no obvious purpose to knock out
its bottom, whereas there can be good reason (this passage suggests what it is)
for knocking it in. By contrast, the reading must remain uncertain in Ar. fr.
281 kkrouamnou (kr- Meineke, gkr- Bachmann, -meno Casaubon,
kkekroumnou Bergk) toÆ pÅndaka, since vessel and context are unknown.
For the construction t¼n pÅndaka e«kekroumnwi see on V.9 aÉla©an Pra
nujamnhn. For the spelling -kekroum- not -kekroum- (Casaubon contem-
plated both), KB 2.467, R. T. Elliott, The Acharnians of Aristophanes (Oxford
1914) 155–6, Meisterhans 185 §71.3, Threatte 2.576, 585. To condemn t¼n p-
ktl. as an interpolation (Diels, first in 1883) defies logic. The spelling Feid-
wne©wi (for -©wi), found in b (Torraca (1974) 95, Stefanis (1994a) 88, 119) and
proposed by Cobet 1854, is confirmed by the papyrus of [Arist.] Ath. 2.10. Cf.
also Alciphr. 3.21.1 jeidwläi täi (Feidwne©wi Cobet) mtrwi kcrhtai.
metre±n aÉt¼ to± ndon t pitdeia: IV.7n.
j»dra poyän: the verb, like pomttein, means ‘wipe off’ in the
sense ‘level off’ grain in a measure with a strickle (p»yhtron, p»mak-
tron etc.). Cf. Poll. 4.170 (of measures that are overfull) t oÉk peyhmna·
t¼ d poyän rgale±on pomktra £ kutlh £ peritroj©, Hsch. A
6478 p»maktra· xÅla· t kutla, n a³ poyäi t mtra, 6818
p»yhtron· t¼ p»maktron toÓ metroumnou ©tou, IG ii2 1013.21 (ii bc fin.)
mtrwi cwroÓnt[i] po[y]ht ithr ¡m. ic[o]in©kia tr©a, Theoc. 15.95 m
moi kenen pomxhi (sc. co©nika, ‘level an empty vessel’, of wasted labour),
Luc. Nau. 25 co©nika, pomemagmnhn kaª taÅthn (‘levelled off too’, i.e. not
more than the regulation measure), Juv. 14.126 seruorum uentres modio castigat
iniquo. This puts the final touch to his stinginess: he uses a ‘Pheidonian mea-
sure’, then gives short measure by using a damaged vessel, and finally trims
even that short measure to the bare minimum. For the corruption in V (Ëpo-
for po-), IV.13n.
12 <kaª> † Ëpopr©aqai j©lou dokoÓnto pr¼ tr»pou pwle±qai pi-

labÜn pod»qai† : this is to combine Ëp- j©lou dokoÓnto pr¼ tr»pou
pwle±qai (V) with Ëp- j©lou pilabÜn pod»qai (AB), in the belief that V
and AB separately preserve something which the other has omitted. Whether
or not the combination is right, conjecture is needed. But no conjecture can
persuade, since we do not know what sense to restore.
Ëpopr©aqai is found only here. If it is sound, its meaning is indeterminable
(‘buy under the price’ LSJ, ‘buy privately’ Jebb, ‘unter der Hand wegkaufen’
513
COMMENTARY
Holland, ‘make a secret purchase’ Rusten). Ëpoywne±n (Ar. Ach. 842) is analo-
gous, but its meaning is equally unclear: ‘underbid in the purchase of victuals or
buy up underhand’ LSJ; but the reverse (‘outbid’) according to one version of
the S (protiqeª t¦i ½ywn©ai· e«ª gr polloª di mikr proqkh ÝnoÅ-
menoi) and (if rightly emended) Phryn. PS p. 117.8–9 de Borries Ëpoywne±n
(Cobet, VL 138, 364: Ëpoy»nhn cod.: Ëperoywne±n Bekker)· t¼ gorzont»
tino Àyon teron t¦i tim¦i Ëperbllonta Ýne±qai (‘when someone is buy-
ing Àyon, another buys it at a higher price’); according to another version of the
S, more generally (and preferably) ‘buy by deceptive means’ (paraklptwn
pª ½ywn©ai, kakourgän). Conceivably Ëpopr©aqai is a mistake for po-
(Coray), which appears in Ar. Ra. 1227 (‘buy up’ or ‘buy off’); §11 n. ad fin.
pr¼ tr»pou is ‘according to one’s character or disposition’ (Pl. Phdr.
252d pr¼ tr»pou klgetai kato), ‘in character’ (Pl. Lg. 655d pr¼
tr»pou çhqnta), ‘appropriately’, ‘suitably’ (pr¼ tr»pou lgein in Pl. R.
470c opposed to preceding p¼ tr- l-, in Lg. 857e much the same as preced-
ing ½rqä l-); cf. X. An. 1.2.11 oÉ gr §n pr¼ toÓ KÅrou tr»pou conta
m podid»nai. That pr¼ tr»pou might legitimately stand with pwle±qai
is suggested by [Anach.] Ep. 1 n pr¼ tr»pou pwläi (‘if they sell at an
agreeable price’). But Ëpo- j©lou dokoÓnto pr¼ tr»pou pwle±qai (V), ‘to
buy (by underhand means, or the like) when a friend thinks that (it) is being
sold at an agreeable price’, will not do (the point is unclear, and impersonal
pwle±qai unthinkable; Stein 270).
Here is a sample of the conjectures. (i) pwle±n kaª pibalÜn p- (Coray),
‘He will buy a thing privately, when a friend seems ready to sell it on reasonable
terms, and will dispose of it at a raised price’ ( Jebb). pibalÛn in this sense
is justified by Arist. Pol. 1259a 14 oÉqen¼ pibllonto (‘bid higher’, LSJ i.4;
in essence, ‘add to the sale-price’). But even with a more correct translation
of dokoÓnto (not ‘seems ready’) the phraseology is unpersuasive and the
point still unclear. (ii) ti Ýne±qai, e²ta labÛn (ti Ýn- Cobet 1874; e²ta l-
Cobet 1854, better than kaª labÛn Fischer and <e²ta> pi- Foss 1858), ‘He
makes a secret purchase from a friend who thinks he is buying something on
a whim, and then, once he’s got it, resells it’ (Rusten). e²ta labÛn gives good
sense (e²ta III.2n.; labÛn IX.4n.). But ti Ýne±qai requires (impossibly) t¼n
a«crokerd¦ to be understood as its subject. (iii) Ëpo- j©lon, <e²ta> pilabÜn
pod»qai Stein (j©lon Blaydes 1907 before Edmonds 1929; <e²ta> Foss
1858). Whether translated ‘outbid a friend’ (Stein) or ‘buy a thing too cheap
from a friend’ (Edmonds), Ëpo- j©lon is not a palatable construction; pilabÛn
has no appropriate sense (none of the senses canvassed by Stein will do here);
and the wholesale disregard of V is cavalier.
As a shot in the dark I offer Ëpopr©aqa© <ti par> j©lou, dokän (ti
Needham before Ast, par Foss 1858 before Hanow 1860, par j©lou ti
514
labÛn Casaubon), ‘He makes a crafty purchase from a friend, pretending . . .’.
ti supplies a desirable object (§18, XIV.6n.); dokän picks up Ëpo-. For par,
LSJ pr©amai 1. But I do not know how to continue.

crw podidoÆ trikonta mnän latton tttari dracma± podoÓ-
nai: 30 minai = 3000 drachmas = 750 tetradrachmas. If the repayment was
made wholly or partly in tetradrachmas (a coin in common use), he will easily
get away with paying one short.
crw (Cobet 1874, but perhaps priority should be given to the Dindorfs
in TGL (1865) s.u. cro 1637) is the correct Attic form according to Phryn.
Ecl. 371 Fischer (Rutherford, New Phrynichus 482), Moer. c 7 (p. 151 Hansen),
Choerob. in Theod. 1.360.3 Hilgard; cf. KB 1.521. Manuscript evidence is no
guide: crw only in D. (c. 15 instances), cro Antipho fr. 67 Thalheim, Isoc.
21.14, Pl. Plt. 267a, Lg. 958b, [Pl.] Ax. 367b, D. 25.69, [Arist.] Pr. 950a 31.
The Attic pl. is not crh (V) but cra. For podidoÆ . . . podoÓnai, §8,
XXI.6n.; for crw . . . trikonta mnän, D. 36.41 cra pollän talntwn;
dat. tttari dracma±, D. 27.19 tttari mna± . . . latton £ Âon pro¦ke,
41.6 latton ta± cil©ai (KG 1.440–1, Schwyzer 2.164).
14 kaª tän Ëän d m poreuomnwn e« t¼ didakale±on t¼n m¦na Âlon: for
the spelling Ëän, IX.5n. With t¼n m¦na Âlon cf. e.g. XVI.10 Âlhn tn ¡mran
(Th. 4.69.3 tn ¡mran Âlhn), D. 19.57 tre± m¦na Âlou (18.30 tre± Âlou
m¦na), Pl. Lg. 849b di ì Âlou toÓ mhn» (for alternative orders of words, LSJ
Âlo i.1); for the accusative see on XVI.2 tn ¡mran. We must suppose that
school fees were paid monthly: when the children fail to attend for the whole
month (i.e. are absent for part of the month), the father makes a proportionate
deduction. Monthly payment, although not attested at Athens, is plausible
enough. Interest on loans was calculated (and might be collected) monthly
(X.2n.); and monthly payment of school fees is attested in Alexandria (Herod.
3.9–10) and Rome (Hor. S. 1.6.75; cf. Luc. Herm. 80); and state payment for
teachers is calculated monthly in Miletus at the end of the second century
bc (SIG 3 577.51 –3; cf. 578.20–1). See C. A. Forbes, Teachers’ Pay in Ancient
Greece (Lincoln, Nebraska 1942) 29–32, H.-I. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans
l’antiquité (Paris 6 1965) 223, W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge Mass.
1989) 100–1 .
There is no good reason either to delete t¼n m¦na Âlon (Nast) or to transpose
the words after m (Foss 1858). Stein (who supports deletion) misunderstands
KG 2.179 (what is described there as the normal order is negative before, as
opposed to after, the words negated). And there is no good reason to amalgamate
the words with the following t¼n ìAnqethriäna m¦na (t¼n ìA- m¦na <Âlon>
515
COMMENTARY
Bloch before Wilamowitz 1902b, t¼n ìAnqethriäna <t¼n Âlon> Ast, t¼n
ìA- <t¼n> m¦na <Âlon> Hottinger). ‘The month of A.’ means the whole
month, and need not be amplified by Âlon.
di tin ì rrwt©an: indefinite tin ì (Unger 1886) is far preferable to tn
(ABV) or deletion of tn (Dübner before Wilamowitz 1902b). Although the
order is prep., noun, enclitic at §19 pr¼ cr»nou tin», XXV.2 p¼ nupn©ou
tin», the enclitic regularly stands after the prep. both in T. (e.g. Sens. 15 di
tina ummetr©an, CP 1.19.3 p» tino ãra) and elsewhere (e.g. the passages
cited on §19 pr¼ cr»nou tin»). Cf. XIX.6 rrwtmata.
jaire±n toÓ miqoÓ kat l»gon: for the gen., LSJ jairw i.1 ; kat
l»gon ‘proportionately’, ‘taking account (of the duration of the absence)’,
Hdt. 1.134.2, 2.13.2, 7.36.3 (LSJ l»go ii.1). For this type of meanness, D.
27.46 e« tooÓton a«crokerde©a §lqen ãte kaª toÆ didaklou toÆ
miqoÆ petrhken.
kaª t¼n ìAnqethriäna m¦na: acc. of duration like [Arist.] Ath. 62 t¼n
ëEkatombaiäna m¦na (see on t¼n m¦na Âlon above). For the order of words see
on III.3 Bohdromiäno.
m pmpein aÉtoÆ e« t maqmata di t¼ qa e²nai poll, ¯na m
t¼n miq¼n kt©nhi: this poses three questions: (i) What are the ‘spectacles’?
(ii) What is ‘the fee’? (iii) How is the frequency of the spectacles related to
non-payment of the fee?
(i) There were two public festivals in Anthesterion: the three-day Anthesteria
(L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 93–122, Pickard-Cambridge, DFA 1 –25,
H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977) 107–20, Burkert, Homo Necans
213–43, Greek Religion 237–42, E. Simon, Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Com-
mentary (Madison 1983) 92–9, R. Hamilton, Choes and Anthesteria: Athenian Icono-
graphy and Ritual (Ann Arbor 1992)) and the one-day Diasia (Deubner 155–8,
M. Jameson, BCH 89 (1965) 159–72, M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen
Religion 1 (Munich 3 1967) 411 –14, Parke 122, Simon 12–15, Hornblower on
Th. 1.126.6, Parker, Athenian Religion 77–8), occasions primarily for eating and
drinking, both attended by children. There were also the Mysteries at Agrai,
or Lesser Mysteries, of uncertain duration (E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian
Mysteries (Princeton 1961) 239–43, Nilsson 667–9, Parke 122–4, Burkert, Homo
Necans 265–6, Simon 26–7). Stein adds the Delia (Deubner 203–4, Nilsson,
Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen (Leipzig 1906)
144–9, Rhodes on [Arist.] Ath. 54.7), but this is irrelevant, since it was cele-
brated on Delos, not in Attica. Two public festivals (four days) and (for some) a
visit to the Lesser Mysteries do not make a month of ‘many’ spectacles. Other
months had a greater number of festival days: see the Festkalender in Deubner,
after p. 268, and J. D. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year
(Princeton 1975). In any case, qa does not naturally suggest a festival. In §6,
V.7, IX.5 it describes a theatrical spectacle; what it describes in third-century
516
Alexandria and later in Rome (Herod. 1.29 etc., cited by Stein) need not be
considered. We may conclude that public festivals appear to have little or no
bearing on the matter at issue.
(ii) It is usually assumed that the fee is a school fee. (iii) Then why and how
does the father avoid paying a school fee because there are many spectacles? Two
explanations are offered. (a) He pretends that, because the school is closed for
part of the month, while the spectacles (whatever they may be) are taking place,
it is not worthwhile to send his sons to school for the remaining days, when they
are open. This is a laboured explanation. (b) According to Ath. 437d–e (citing
as evidence Eubulid. 1) o¬ ojita© received presents and their fees (där te
kaª toÆ miqoÅ) during the Anthesteria. These are the payments which the
father is avoiding. This is wrong: even if (what is disputable) o¬ ojita© are
schoolteachers, to keep the children from school is not the way to avoid making
these presents and payments, since (says Athenaeus) they were made during
the festival itself, which father and son will attend. Further, the existence of a
custom of this kind at the Anthesteria does not explain why ‘many spectacles’
are mentioned. To cut the knot by deleting di t¼ qa e²nai poll (Hirschig,
contemplated by Stein) is rash.
The ‘fee’ is not a school fee but the cost of admission to a ‘spectacle’. Just
as the ìAneleÅqero pretends that his sons are unwell during the Moue±a, a
school festival, in order to avoid sending a contribution to the expenses of the
entertainment (XXII.6), so here the father keeps his sons at home in order
to avoid paying for ‘spectacles’, which are outings to the theatre (or the like)
organised by the school itself.
15 kaª par paid¼ komiz»meno pojorn: pojor is a ‘return’, here

applied to money (part of his earnings) paid to his master by a slave set up in
business or allowed to work for himself (Ammon. Diff. 66 Nickau pojor . . .
ti t Ëp¼ tän doÅlwn to± dep»tai parec»mena crmata). So Aeschin.
1.97 o«kta dhmiourgoÆ t¦ kutotomik¦ tcnh . . . æn kato toÅtwi
dÅ ì ½boloÆ pojorn jere t¦ ¡mra, Men. Epit. 380 tn pojorn
pod»nte, fr. 326. The definition of LSJ i (‘money which slaves let out to hire
paid to their master’) is muddled: it confuses the ‘return’ illustrated above with
a different ‘return’ (the fee received from a man who hires a slave) illustrated
by And. 1.38 jh . . . e²nai mn ndrpod»n o¬ pª Laure©wi, de±n d kom©aqai
pojorn. Here we may assume that the slave works for himself, since the mas-
ter gets the money direct from him. See Thalheim, ‘ ìApojor’, RE ii.1 (1895)
174, Schultheß, ‘MiqojoroÓnte’, RE xv.2 (1932) 2078, Kränzlein (§9n.)
43–5, S. Lauffer, Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion (Wiesbaden 2 1979) 70–1,
107–10, E. E. Cohen, Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective (Prince-
ton 1992) 93, W. Schmitz, ‘Apophora’, DNP 1 (1996) 892. For komiz»meno,
XXIII.3n., And. 1.38 (above).
517
COMMENTARY
toÓ calkoÓ tn pikatallagn proapaite±n: the slave pays his master
in bronze coinage, and the master demands, in addition to the money, the
cost of exchanging it for silver. calk» is here ‘bronze money’, as Epich.
110, Ar. Ec. 822 (calk»n Poll. 9.93: calkoÓn codd.), SIG 3 218.15 (Sarmatian
Olbia iv bc); LSJ ii.4, M. N. Tod, NC 6 (1946) 49, V. Schmidt, Sprachliche
Untersuchungen zu Herondas (Berlin 1968) 43–5, Stein 276. pikatallag (LSJ
s.u. is defective) is the sum added to the exchange, the ‘commission’, as in
IG iv2 103.41 (Epidaurus iv bc), SIG 3 247 ii.10, 252.7, 15 (Delphi iv bc), and
in this sense is synonymous with katallag (D. 50.30, Diph. 67.14, Euphro
3.4, IG iv2 103.122, 126), wrongly conjectured here by Cobet 1874. See Laum,
‘Agio’, RE Suppl. iv (1924) 9–11, Bogaert, Banques et banquiers esp. 48–9, 326, S.
Isager and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century (Odense
1975) 90–1, Millett, Lending and Borrowing 216–17, Cohen (above) 18–22.
kaª logim¼n d lambnwn par toÓ ceir©zonto < . . .: a clause linked
by kaª . . . d always contains an infin. (I.2n., VI.9n.), and so, if the sentence
is complete, lambnwn must be changed to lambnein (present, as XIII.9).
Otherwise we must mark a lacuna. Since, even with infin., the sense remains
unclear, the lacuna is preferable. With logim¼n l- cf. Arist. Pol. 1322 b 9 tn (sc.
rcn) lhyomnhn logim¼n kaª proeuqunoÓan (hold an audit and conduct
a scrutiny), and (with logim» in a non-financial sense) D. 23.156, Men. Sam.
420, 620. This much at least is clear: that he is getting an account. From
whom and why is not clear. Jebb takes toÓ ceir©zonto to mean ‘manager’ (‘In
going through the accounts of his manager <he will challenge small items>’).
Wilamowitz 1902b (retaining the part., and with no lacuna) supposes that the
master requires the ‘manager’ to pay the cost of converting the silver coins
which he has given him into bronze coins which are needed for payments to
tradesmen. Similarly Stein; and the same is implied by Rusten’s translation
(‘as when he settles accounts with his steward’). This is fantasy: there is no
inkling of any such transaction in the text. ceir©zein is elsewhere transitive, not
absolute, and the context allows no appropriate object (such as ‘the master’s
money’) to be understood. Contrast (cited in support by Stein) D.S. 16.56.3
gneto zthi tän ¬erän crhmtwn kaª l»gon toÆ keceirik»ta (sc. t
¬er crmata) o¬ Fwke± pitoun. As object of toÓ ceir©zonto we could
understand only pikatallagn or logim»n. Nothing is gained, as things
stand, by toÉgceir©zonto (Meineke), ‘the man who hands over or puts in
hand’, since clarification is still required. toÓ <t¼n gr¼n g>c- (Navarre
1924) is inept.
16 kaª jrtera tiän: for jr- without art. (<toÆ> jr- Fischer) see on X.11
tiän dhm»ta. For the spelling (-ter- restored here for -tor- by Herwerden
before Cobet 1874, but already prescribed as the correct Attic form by Meineke,
Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum (Berlin 1839) 218, W. Dindorf in TGL (1865)
518
s.u. 1036–7), Meisterhans §52.2, Threatte 2.117. For the possible number of
members in a phratry, XXV.8n. The occasion is often assumed to be the
Apatouria, when a father who presents his son for admission to the phratry
might be expected to entertain other members (III.3n., XXI.3n.). But ‘the
common fund’ (t¼ koin»n) shows that the other diners are making at least
some contribution to expenses. This suggests something more like a de±pnon
p¼ umbolän (§18, X.3–4n.), at which he is host.
a«te±n to± autoÓ paiªn k toÓ koinoÓ Àyon: IX.3n. For the form aut-
(also §17, §18), I.2n. For k toÓ koinoÓ, Hdt. 6.58.1, 9.87.2 (k k- Arist. Pol.
1272 a 20, k k- trjein Antiph. 227.4–5, k k- jage±n Euphanes 1.4; cf. §17 e«
t¼ koin»n). For Àyon, IX.4n.
t d kataleip»mena p¼ t¦ trapzh çajan©dwn ¡m©ea: ‘left over
from the table’ or ‘left over after the meal’ (see on XXIV.2 p¼ de©pnou; LSJ
trpeza i.2 ‘table, as implying what is upon it, meal’ ). Similarly Heraclid.Cum.
FGrH 689 f 2 (p. 519.25–8) ap. Ath. 145f peidn d o¬ Åndeipnoi deipnwi,
tän p¼ t¦ trapzh kataleipomnwn (Meineke: para- codd.) –
katale©petai d t ple±ta kra kaª rtoi – ¾ t¦ trapzh pimeloÅ-
meno d©dwin ktwi tän o«ketän. The idiom illustrated on II.10 tän p¼
t¦ trapzh is different. p© (Pauw) is unwanted. For the word order (part.,
prep. phrase, noun), §9n.
çajan©dwn ¡m©ea (V) are ‘half-radishes’, ‘radish-halves’, like X. An. 1.9.26
rtwn ¡m©ea ‘half-loaves’. To halve or slice a radish is a natural way to serve
it. The gen. is attributive, not (as Stein takes it) partitive; and so the word order
is perfectly regular. The alternative t . . . ¡m©h tän çajan©dwn (AB), though
usually interpreted in the same way, might rather suggest ‘half the radishes’,
not because of word order (XIV.5n.) but because of the art. with the gen. Thus
D. 27.18 t ¡m©ea tän ndrap»dwn, 62 t ¡m- tän crhmtwn, Is. 6.38 tän
rca©wn . . . t ¡m-, X. Cyr. 4.5.4 tän rtwn toÆ ¡m©ei. Although in these
passages ¡m- takes its gender from the dependent gen. (cf. LSJ ¤miu i.2, KG
1.279), the neut. pl. t ¡m- is also found with a gen. which (like çajan©dwn) is
not neut. (Pl. Lg. 672e t . . . t¦ core©a ¡m-). At all events, ‘half the radishes’
is inferior sense, because (i) to specify that half have been left over is too fussy
(‘the left-over radishes’ would be more natural); (ii) halved radishes have a
shorter life than whole radishes, and so to make an inventory of them (which
implies the intention to store them) is no less stupid than mean. In any case,
the radish is no choice dish (Ar. Pl. 544, Amphis 26). For types of radish, Dalby
277–8.
¡m©ea (V) is a safer choice than ¡m©h (AB). The mss. offer: -ea Th. 4.16.1,
And. 1.97, Pl. R. 438c (and 10 other instances), X. An. 1.9.26, Cyr. 8.3.10,
Ages. 4.5, Is. 6.38, 7.19, 11.50, D. 27.18, 62 (-h S), 36.36 (-h S), 48.8, 58.13 (-h
SQD), Arist. Mech. 857 a 1, Mir. 832 a 9, Oec. 1349b 36, 1350a 1, 3, 5, Ph. 263 a 30
(u.l. -h), 263 b 8; -h Hyp. Dem. 10 (papyrus), Arist. APr. 42 b 4, Mech. 856b 35,
519
COMMENTARY
Metaph. 1035 a 18, Ph. 240a 12, 263 a 23, 26, 28 (u.l. 30), Pol. 1301 b 35, Plb. 18.44.7.
Meisterhans 150 §12 cites an isolated 4th-cent. instance of -h: IG ii2 1678.23 =
Inscr.Délos (ed. J. Coupry, Paris 1972) 104–4 aA 23 (Coupry 55 suggests 360–
350 bc, but admits that it may be somewhat later). The form in -h is condemned
by the grammarians (Hdn. fr. 3 p. 75 Dain, An.Ox. 3.247.13–15, Phryn. p. 73.6
de Borries, Thom.Mag. 172.4 Ritschl). See also KB 1.443 Anmerk. 11, Schwyzer
1.573e.
pogrjeqai: ‘have listed, registered’, implying a process more formal
than counting items of food before locking them away ( Juv. 14.133, Luc. Herm.
11). Cf. PCG adesp. 1152.23–5 n krÅptw t© e | [kaª m di]ka©w p[]nt ì
pogryw kaª kaq[ ì n | p» ì tª] tndon, [p»]a kecrkamn tiin, Men.
Asp. 275, 391 –2.
¯n ì o¬ diakonoÓnte pa±de m lbwi: cf. XXII.4. Similar meanness:
Antiph. 89.1 –3 (= Epicr. 5.4–6) ¾rn te ke©mena | mhta ¡mibräta ½rn©qei
te, | æn oÉd leijqntwn qmi doÅlwi jage±n.
17 <kaª> unapodhmän d met gnwr©mwn: for <ka©>, VI.9n.;

unapodhmän, XXIII.3n.; un- . . . met, XXI.11 n.
t¼n d autoÓ xw miqäai: ‘let out for hire outside (the house)’ is a com-
prehensible expression. But perhaps <to±> xw ‘to outsiders’ (HP 4.8.4, Th.
5.14.3, Lys. 6.6, Pl. R. 577a, X. Oec. 10.8; cf. to± ndon §11, IV.7, XVI.10).
Less likely kmiqäai (Blaydes, but already declined by Ast). Cf. L. Casson,
TAPhA 106 (1976) 40.
kaª m najrein e« t¼ koin¼n t¼n miq»n: cf. D. 41.8 tn timn . . . e« t¼
koin¼n nennocen, Hdt. 3.80.6 bouleÅmata . . . t¼ koin¼n najrei; also
§16 k toÓ koinoÓ.
18 mlei d ka©: §13n.

unag»ntwn par ì aÉtäi: he is acting as host at a dinner p¼ umbolän
(X.3–4n.). The verb is intrans., as Men. Epit. 412, fr. 123, Diph. 42.28, Sophil.
5.2, Euphro 1.10; Arnott on Alex. 253.2. For the trans. use, XXVII.11 n. For
the part. with indefinite subject unexpressed (as §20 podid»ntwn), XIV.7n.
For aÉtäi rather than au- (V), I.2n.
Ëpoqe±na© <ti>: LSJ Rev.Suppl. cites this verb from IG ii2 1228.5
(116/15 bc) in the sense ‘enter in one’s accounts’. The simple verb means
‘reckon’, ‘place to account’, ‘put down as a charge’ (Lys. 32.21 t¼ mn ¤miu
aËtäi t©qhi, <t¼ d> toÅtoi lel»gitai; LSJ a.ii.9.b, XXIII.6n. t©qhin).
Other possible senses for Ëpo- would be ‘surreptitiously’, ‘without telling the
guests’ (‘clam in rationem referre’ Diels, Index) or ‘at the bottom of the bill’
(Wilamowitz). For the latter, LSJ i.2.b (in documentary papyri, ‘subjoin, enclose,
append a document’; F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden 2
520
(Berlin 1927) 676 s.u. Ëpot©qhmi 7); cf. Alex. 15.18 pr»qe t¼n o²non ‘put down
the wine too’, in a list of charges. If the verb can be taken to mean (with what-
ever nuance) ‘charge for’, the gen. can be taken as analogous to that found with
(kata)tiqnai, ‘put down (money) for’, ‘pay for’: Ar. Pax 1214 t© d¦ta toutoinª
kataqä oi to±n l»join;, Eriph. 2.4–5 toÅtwn . . . ½bol¼n . . . t©qhmi, X. Cyr.
3.1.37 mhdn aÉtän kataqe© (KG 1.378). But we expect a direct object (the sum
charged) to be expressed rather than understood: <t¼n ånon> Holland 1897,
<l»gon> Fraenkel and Groeneboom, Ëp»<logon> qqai Navarre 1920. A
simple <ti> is neater (XIV.6n.). There may be more extensive corruption.
But suggestions like poqe±nai tän [par ì autoÓ] didomnwn x- (po- Ast,
Coray ap. Schneider 1821 ; par ì - del. Coray before Ussing; par ì ktou
Unger 1886) ‘secrete some of the fire-wood . . . placed at his disposal’ ( Jebb; cf.
Millett, Lending and Borrowing 155) are way off mark. Ëpomnhq¦nai (Darvaris)
gives less apt sense.
tän par ì autoÓ didomnwn xÅlwn kaª jakän kaª Àxou kaª län kaª
la©ou toÓ e« t¼n lÅcnon: for the word order, §9n. Lentils are cheap, the
ingredient of a poor man’s soup (XIV.11 n.). For vinegar, Pritchett 187–9,
Arnott on Alex. 286.3, Olson and Sens on Archestr. 23.6, Olson on Ar. Ach.
35, Dalby 343; salt, IX.3n. (salt and vinegar together, Men. Dysc. 506–7); lamp
oil, M.-C. Amouretti, Le pain et l’huile dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1986) 190. For
the construction la©ou toÓ e« t¼n lÅcnon, IX.4n.
19 kaª gamoÓnt» tino tän j©lwn £ kdidomnou qugatra: since these are
alternative activities, they cannot be linked by ka© (ABV); VI.4n. For confusion
of ¢ and ka©, XI.4 (¢ B, ka© A), Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides 27, Euripidea
198. For kd- qugatra, XXII.4n.
pr¼ cr»nou tin¼ podhm¦ai: for the preposition, Hdt. 7.30.2, 7.138.1
pr¼ polloÓ, Pl. Phdr. 249a pr¼ tooÅtou cr»nou (LSJ pr» a.ii.1, J. Wacker-
nagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax ii (Basel 1924) 195). Ribbeck 1870 deleted tin».
But ti is found with cr»no in a variety of phrases: e.g. di tino c- (Arist.
Pol. 1272 b 13), n tini c- (Pl. Phd. 115a, X. HG 3.3.7), p© tina c- (Pl. Grg. 524d,
Arist. EN 1100a 30), met tina c- (HP 4.2.11), mcri tin¼ c- (Pl. Ti. 89c), c-
tin (E. IT 921, Th. 7.40.4). For podhm¦ai, XXIII.3n.
¯na <m> pmyhi projorn: propmyhi (V) is an unsuitable compound,
and propmyhi (Coray) is less natural than the simple verb (XV.5n.), and
the repeated pro- is unpleasing. pro- will have been prompted by preceding
pr» (XXII.8n.) and following pro- (IV.13n. periÛn). Accidental omission of
the neg. is illustrated from Greek, Latin, and German by A. Brinkmann, RhM
74 (1925) 34–5. Wedding presents: J. H. Oakley and R. H. Sinos, The Wedding
in Ancient Athens (Madison 1993), Index s.u. ‘gifts’, A.-M. Vérilhac and C. Vial,
Le mariage grec (BCH Suppl. 32, 1998) 326–7.
521
COMMENTARY
20 kaª par tän gnwr©mwn toiaÓta k©craqai: IV.11 n., Millett, Lending and
Borrowing 147. For k©craqai, V.10n.
mt ì n paitai mt ì n podid»ntwn tacw n ti kom©aito:
for the repetition (and position) of n see KG 1.246–8, J. Wackernagel, Kleine
Schriften (Göttingen 1953) 1.60–70, E. Fraenkel, Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen
Philologie (Rome 1964) 1.93ff., Barrett on E. Hi. 270. The second n should
not be replaced by aÔ (Hanow 1860, Unger 1886) or p ì (F. Müller ap. Stein-
metz). With tacw n ti kom©aito cf. Ar. Lys. 154 pond poiaint ì n
tacw, [And.] 4.27 tacw ptreyen n, Herod. 3.11 oÉk n tacw lxeie
(‘= col¦i n’ Headlam); no need for tc ì n (Wachsmuth ap. Holland 1897).
For kom©aito, LSJ ii.8.
Plural part. podid»ntwn is normal (as §18 unag»ntwn), sing. podid»nto
(Cobet 1858, before Hanow, Unger, Blaydes) abnormal (XIV.7n.).
522
A B B R E V I AT I O N S A N D
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I S E L E C T A B B R E V I AT I O N S
Abbreviations for periodicals follow L’Année Philologique; for Greek authors (for
the most part), LSJ; for Latin, OLD.
CPG Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, edd. E. L. von Leutsch and F. G.
Schneidewin (Göttingen 1839–51)
DNP Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike (Stuttgart 1996–2002)
HdA Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, ed. E. Hoffmann-Krayer
(Berlin and Leipzig 1927–42)
KB R. Kühner and F. Blass, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache,
erster Teil: Elementar- und Formenlehre (Hanover and Leipzig
1890–2)
KG R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen
Sprache, zweiter Teil: Satzlehre (Hanover and Leipzig 1898–1904)
LGPN A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, edd. P. M. Fraser et al. (Oxford
1987–)
LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich and Munich
1981 –97)
LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn., revised
by Sir Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford 1940); Revised Supplement, ed.
P. G. W. Glare (Oxford 1996)
OCD3 The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn., edd. S. Hornblower and
A. Spawforth (Oxford 1996)
OED2 The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn., Oxford 1989)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxford 1968–82)
PCG Poetae Comici Graeci, edd. R. Kassel and C. Austin (Berlin and New
York 1983–)
RE Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart and
Munich 1893–1978)
SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. H. von Arnim (Leipzig 1905–24)
TGL Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, 3rd edn., edd. C. B. Hase and G. and
L. Dindorf (Paris 1831 –65)
TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edd. B. Snell, R. Kannicht, S. Radt
(Göttingen 1971 –)
TrGFSel Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Selecta, ed. J. Diggle (Oxford 1998)
523
BIBLIOG RAPHY
II SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(I) EDITIONS
T = Text, t = translation, C = Commentary, c = brief notes. I list only those
editions which I mention in the Commentary or which are worth recording
for historical reasons. An asterisk marks an edition which I have not seen. See
also ‘Some texts and commentaries’ (pp. 52–7).
(I–XV)
W. Pirckheimer, Nuremberg 1527 [Tt]
ed. Basil.a , Basel (A. Cratander) 1531 [Tt]
ed. Basil.b , Basel (J. Oporinus) 1541 [T]
C. Gesner, in Ioannis Stobaei Sententiae . . . ,1 Zurich 1543, 2 Basel 1549, 3 Zurich
1559 [Tt]
(I–XXIII)
J. B. Camotius, Venice (Aldus Manutius) 1552 [T]
H. Stephanus, Paris 1557 [Tc]
L. Lycius, Leipzig 1561 [TtC]
C. Auberius, Basel 1582 [TtC]
F. Morel, Paris 1583 [Tt]
F. Sylburg, Frankfurt 1584 [Tc]
I. Casaubon, Lyon 1 1592 [TtC]
D. Furlanus, Hanow 1605 [Ttc]
(I–XXVIII)
I. Casaubon, Lyon 2 1599, 3 1612 [TtC]
T. Gale, 1 Cambridge 1670–1, 2 Amsterdam 1688 [Tt]
E. Benzelius, Upsala 17081
P. Needham, Cambridge 1712 [TtC]
J. M. Gesner, in Chrestomathia Graeca, Leipzig 1734 [Tc]
J. C. de Pauw, Utrecht 1737 [TtC]
J. C. Schwartz, Coburg 1739 [TtC]
R. Newton, Oxford 1754 [TtC]
J. F. Fischer, Coburg 1763 [TC]
1
Merely a reprint of Casaubon’s text and translation, but notable for its
analytical Index verborum by P. Hedelinus, which runs to nearly 300 pages
(J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship iii (Cambridge 1908) 347, is
ill-informed).
524
BIBLIOG RAPHY
(XXIX–XXX)
J. C. Amadutius, Parma 1786 [Ttc]
C. D. Beck, Leipzig 1787 [Tt]
(I–XXX)
J. Wilkes, London 1790 [T]
J. J. H. Nast, Stuttgart 1791 ∗
J. J. Hottinger, Munich 1797 ∗ , 1810, 1821 ∗ [tC]
J. A. Goez, Nuremberg 1798 [TC]
Coray, Paris 1799 [TtC]
J. G. Schneider, Jena 1799 [TC]
L. Sahl, Copenhagen 1802 [TC]
S. N. J. Bloch, Leipzig 1814 [TC]
D. N. Darvaris, Vienna 1815 [TC]
F. Ast, Leipzig 1816 [TC]
J. G. Schneider, Leipzig 1818–21 [Tc]
F. Dübner, Paris 1840 [Tt]
J. G. Sheppard, London 1852 [TC]
J. A. Hartung, Leipzig 1857 [Ttc]
H. E. Foss, Leipzig 1858 [Tc]
E. Petersen, Leipzig 1859 [Tc]
J. L. Ussing, Copenhagen 1868 [TC]
R. C. Jebb, London and Cambridge 1870; revised by J. E. Sandys, London
1909 [TtC]
M. Bechert, C. Cichorius, A. Giesecke, R. Holland, J. Ilberg, O. Immisch, R.
Meister, W. Ruge, Leipzig 1897 [TtC]
A. Romizi, Florence 1899 [TtC]
J. M. Fraenkel and P. Groeneboom, Leiden 1901 [Tc]
J. M. Edmonds and G. E. V. Austen, London 1904 [TC]
H. Diels, Oxford 1909 [T]
J. E. Sandys 1909 (see Jebb 1870)
G. Pasquali, Florence 1919; revised by V. De Falco, Florence 1956 [Ttc]
O. Navarre, Paris (Coll. Budé) 1 1920, 2 1931 [Ttc]
O. Immisch, Leipzig and Berlin (Teubner) 1923 [T]
O. Navarre, Paris 1924 [C]
J. M. Edmonds, London etc. (Loeb) 1 1929, 2 1946 [Ttc]
P. Steinmetz, Munich 1960–2 [TtC]
R. G. Ussher, London 1 1960, 2 1993 [TC]
J. Rusten, Cambridge, Mass. etc. (Loeb) 1 1993, 2 2002 [Ttc]
L. Torraca (Milan 1994) [Ttc] [1994a]
525
BIBLIOG RAPHY
(II) OTHER WORKS

I list (for the most part) only works which I mention with abbreviated reference
in the commentary.
Arnott, W. G., ‘Some orthographical variants in the papyri of later Greek
Comedy’, in A. Willi (ed.), The Language of Greek Comedy (Oxford 2002)
191 –217
Bassi, D., ‘Il testo più antico dell’ ìArkeia di Teofrasto in un papiro
ercolanese’, RFIC 37 (1909) 397–405
Herculanensium Voluminum quae supersunt Collectio Tertia i (Milan 1914) 13–15
Bennett, C. E., and Hammond, W. A., The Characters of Theophrastus: A Transla-
tion, with Introduction (New York etc. 1902)
Berg, C. (review of Ussing), Tidskrift for Philologi og Paedagogik 8 (1868–9) 108–27
Bersanetti, F., ‘Appunti critici ed esegetici ai Caratteri di Teofrasto’, RFIC 37
(1909) 206–29
Birt, T., Kritik und Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des antiken Buchwesens (Munich 1913)
Blaydes, F. H. M., ‘Notae in Theophrasti Characteras’, Hermathena 17 (1891)
[8 (1893)] 1 –13 = (with addenda) Miscellanea Critica (Halle 1907) 45–54, 188
Blomqvist, J., Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose (Lund 1969)
Blümner, H., ‘Zu Theophrastos Charakteren’, JKPh 31 (1885) 485–6
Bodei Giglioni, G., ‘Immagini di una società. Analisi storica dei “Caratteri”
di Teofrasto’, Athenaeum 58 (1980) 73–102
Bogaert, R., Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques (Leiden 1968)
Boissonade, J. F., ‘Theophrasti Characteres tentati’, in F. A. Wolf (ed.), Liter-
arische Analekten ii (Berlin [1818] 1820) 88–90
Bolkestein, H., Theophrastos’ Charakter der Deisidaimonia als religionsgeschichtliche
Urkunde (Giessen 1929)
Bruhn, E., Anhang, vol. viii of Sophokles, edd. F. W. Schneidewin and A. Nauck
(Berlin 1899)
Bücheler, F., ‘Coniectanea’, JClPh 20 (1874) 691 –6 = Kleine Schriften ii (Leipzig
and Berlin 1927) 80–5
Burkert, W., Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and
Myth (tr. P. Bing, Berkeley 1983)
Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (tr. J. Raffan, Oxford 1985)
Bury, R. G., ‘Some passages in Theophrastus . . .’, PCPhS 91 (1912) 4–5
Chadwick, J., Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek
(Oxford 1996)
Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots (Paris
1968–80)
Cichorius, C., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
Cobet, C. G., Variae Lectiones (Leiden 1854) 56, 66, 73, 136, 138, 204, (2 1873)
560, 581
526
BIBLIOG RAPHY
Novae Lectiones (Leiden 1858) 52, 174–5, 190–1, 368, 405–6, 430, 558–60,
594–5, 698, 775 [= Mnemosyne 4 (1855) 236; 5 (1856) 194–5, 238–9; 6
(1857) 208, 311 –12, 336; 7 (1858) 70–2, 134–5, 290, 423]
‘Theophrasti Characteres e Codice Palatino-Vaticano CX. accuratissime
expressi’, Mnemosyne 8 (1859) 310–38
‘Ad Philodemi Librum X perª kakiän et Theophrasti Carakt¦ra
qikoÅ’, Mnemosyne 2 (1874) 28–72
Costa, T., ‘De codicibus Theophrasti Bucarestinis duobus’, LF 90 (1967) 1 –8
Csapo, E., and Slater, W. J., The Context of Ancient Drama (Michigan 1994)
Dalby, A., Food in the Ancient World from A to Z (London and New York 2003)
Daremberg, C., and Saglio, E., Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines (Paris
1873–1919)
Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (Oxford 2 1954)
Dickey, E., Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford 1996)
Diels, H., Theophrastea (Berlin 1883)
(review of Bechert et al.), DLZ 19 (1898) 750–3
Diggle, J., Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford 1981)
Euripidea: Collected Essays (Oxford 1994)
Dobree, P. P., Adversaria, ed. J. Scholefield (Cambridge 1831 –3) i.161, ed.
W. Wagner (Berlin 1874, London 1883) i.139–40
Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1963)
Dorandi, T., and Stein, M., ‘Der älteste Textzeuge für den reko des
Theophrast’, ZPE 100 (1994) 1 –16
Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford
1974)
Duport, J., Praelectiones in Theophrasti Characteres, ap. Needham (1712)
Eberhard, A., Obseruationes Babrianae (Berlin 1865) 5
JAW 2 (1876) 1293–9
Edmonds, J. M., ‘Contributions to a new text of the Characters of Theophrastus’,
CQ 2 (1908) 119–22, 161 –5
‘Two editions of the Characters of Theophrastus’, CQ 4 (1910) 128–40
(review of Pasquali 1919 and Navarre 1920), JHS 43 (1923) 91 –2
(review of Immisch 1923), JHS 46 (1926) 129–30
Feraboli, S., ‘Perplessità su passi dei “Caratteri” di Teofrasto’, PP 29 (1974)
251 –6
Finley, M. I., Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500–200 BC: The Horos-
Inscriptions (New Brunswick 1952)
Fortenbaugh, W. W., Quellen zur Ethik Theophrasts (Amsterdam 1984)
and P. M. Huby, A. A. Long (edd.), Theophrastus of Eresus: On his Life and Work
(New Brunswick and Oxford 1985)
and P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharples, D. Gutas (edd.), Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources
for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence (Leiden etc. 1992–)
527
BIBLIOG RAPHY
Foss, H. E., De Theophrasti Notationibus Morum Commentationes I–IV (Altenburg

and Halle 1834, 1835, 1836, 1861)
(review of Petersen), ZG 15 (1861 ) 639–93
Frisk, H., Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg 1960–72)
Gaiser, K. (review of Steinmetz ii), Gnomon 36 (1964) 24–31
Geddes, A. G., ‘Rags and riches: the costume of Athenian men in the fifth
century’, CQ 37 (1987) 307–31
Giesecke, A., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
Ginouvès, R., Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque (Paris
1962)
Gomperz, T., ‘Ueber die Charaktere Theophrast’s’, SAWW 117 (1889) x. Abh.
‘Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung griechischer Schriftsteller. vi’, SAWW
139 (1898) i. Abh.
Goodwin, W. W., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London 1889)
Gow, A. S. F., and Page, D. L., The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cam-
bridge 1965)
The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip (Cambridge 1968)
Groeneboom, P., ‘De Theophrasti Epitome Monacensi’, Mnemosyne 45 (1917)
127–32
Gronewald, M., ‘P. Hamb. 143 = Theophrast, Charaktere 7 und 8’, ZPE 35
(1979) 21 –2
Grübler, H. (review of Bechert et al.), REG 11 (1898) 236–7
Hanow, F., De Theophrasti Characterum Libello (Leipzig 1858)
In Theophrasti Characteras Symbolae Criticae I–II (Leipzig 1860–1)
Hansen, M. H., The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles,
and Ideology (tr. J. A. Crook, Oxford 1991)
Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens (Oxford 1968–70)
Haupt, M., Hermes 3 (1869) 336–7; 5 (1871) 29–30; 7 (1873) 295–6 = Opuscula
3 (Leipzig 1876) 434–6, 498–9, 592
Herwerden, H. van, ‘Bijdrage tot de verklaring en kritiek van de Charakteres
van Theophrastus’, VMAW 2.1 (1871 ) 242–311
Hicks, E. L., ‘On the Characters of Theophrastus’, JHS 3 (1882) 128–43
Hindenlang, L., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Theophrasts botanischen Schriften
(Strasburg 1910)
Hirschig, W. A., Annotationes Criticae in Comicos, Aesch. etc. (Utrecht 1849) 61 –3
Holland, R., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
(review of Immisch 1923), PhW 43 (1923) 937–44
Ilberg, J., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
Immisch, O., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
‘Ueber Theophrasts Charaktere’, Philologus 57 (1898) 193–212
(review of Diels 1909), DLZ 31 (1910) 867–70
(review of Bolkestein), Gnomon 6 (1930) 269–75
528
BIBLIOG RAPHY
Ingenkamp, H. G., Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen (Wiesbaden

1967)
Jackson, J., Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford 1955)
Kayser, K. L., ‘Schriften über Theophrast von Hanow und Petersen’, Heidel-
berger Jahrbücher der Literatur 53 (1860) 610–23
Klotz, C. A., Animadversiones in Theophrasti Characteres Ethicos (Jena 1761)
Kondo, E., ‘I “Caratteri” di Teofrasto nei papiri ercolanesi’, CErc 1 (1971 )
73–87
Konstantakos, I., A Commentary on the Fragments of eight Plays of Antiphanes (Ph.D.
thesis, Cambridge 2000).
Korver, J., De Terminologie van het Crediet-Wezen in het Grieksch (Amsterdam 1934;
repr. New York 1979)
Koujeas (Kouga), S. B., Kritikaª kaª rmhneutikaª Parathrei e« toÆ
Qeojrtou Carakt¦ra (Athens 1915)
Landi, C., ‘De Theophrasti Characterum libris Florentinis’, SIFC 8 (1900)
91 –8
Lane Fox, R. J., ‘Theophrastus’ Characters and the historian’, PCPhS 42 (1996)
127–70
Lloyd-Jones, H., and Parsons, P., Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin and New
York 1983)
MacDowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (London 1978)
Madvig, J. N., ap. Ussing (ODVF 1868) 110–13
Adversaria Critica 1 (Copenhagen 1871) 478–9
Matelli, E., ‘Libro e testo nella tradizione dei Caratteri di Teofrasto’, S&C 13
(1989) 329–86
Meerwaldt, J. D., ‘Adnotationes criticae et exegeticae’, Mnemosyne 53 (1925)
393–405 [393]
Meier, M. H. E., Commentationes Theophrasteae I–V (Halle 1830, 1834/5, 1842,
1850, 1850/1) = Opuscula Academica ii (Halle 1863) 190–262
Meineke, A., ‘Ad Theophrasti librum de characteribus’, Philologus 14 (1859)
403–7
Meiser, K., ‘Zu Theophrasts Charakteren’, Philologus 70 (1911 ) 445–8
Meister, R., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
Meisterhans, K., Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, rev. E. Schwyzer (Berlin 1900)
Mey, H. W. van der, ‘Ad Theophrasti Characteres’, in Sylloge Commentationum
quam Viro cl. Constantino Conto obtulerunt Philologi Batavi (Leiden 1893) 71 –3
Millett, P., ‘Patronage and its avoidance in classical Athens’, in A. Wallace-
Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London 1989) 15–48
‘Sale, credit and exchange in Athenian law and society’, in P. Cartledge,
P. Millett, S. Todd (edd.), Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society
(Cambridge 1990) 167–94
Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens (Cambridge 1991)
529
BIBLIOG RAPHY
‘Encounters in the Agora’, in P. Cartledge, P. Millett, S. von Reden (edd.),

Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge
1998) 203–28
Moorhouse, A. C., The Syntax of Sophocles (Leiden 1982)
Müller, W., De Theophrasti Dicendi Ratione. i: Obseruationes de Particularum Vsu
(Arnstadt 1874)
Ueber den Sprachgebrauch des Theophrastus (Progr. Arnstadt 1878)
Münsterberg, R., ‘Zu Theophrasts Charakteren’, WS 16 (1894) 161 –7; 17 (1895)
217–21
Naber, S. A., ‘Adnotationes criticae ad Theophrasti Characteres’, Mnemosyne
20 (1892) 319–37
Nauck, A., ‘Zu den Theophrastischen Charakteren’, Philologus 5 (1850) 383–4
‘Kritische Bemerkungen’, Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-
Pétersbourg 6 (1863) 9–69 [63–5] = Mélanges Gréco-Romains tirés du Bulletin . . .
2 (1866) 477–9
Navarre, O., ‘Theophrastea: quelques conjectures sur le texte des Caractères’,
REA 20 (1918) 213–22
‘Le papyrus d’Herculanum 1457 et le texte des Caractères de Théophraste’,
REA 23 (1921 ) 261 –72
Orelli, J. C., Lectiones Polybianae et Theophrasteae (Zurich 1834) 14–17
Orth, E., ‘Katalepton i’, PhW 52 (1932) 1314–17 [1314]
Osborne, M. J., and Byrne, S. G., The Foreign Residents of Athens: An Annex to the
‘Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica’ (Louvain 1996)
Otto, A., Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig 1890)
Page, D. L., Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981)
Parker, R., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford 1983)
Athenian Religion: A History (Oxford 1996)
Pasquali, G., ‘Sui “Caratteri” di Teofrasto’, RLC 1 (1918) 73–9, 143–50; 2 (1919)
1 –21 = Scritti Filologici (ed. F. Bornmann, G. Pascucci, S. Timpanaro,
Florence 1986) 47–96
(review of Navarre 1920 and 1924), Gnomon 2 (1926) 83–95, 247–9 = Scritti
Filologici 841 –57
Pellegrino, M., Utopie e Immagini gastronomiche nei Frammenti dell’Archaia (Eikasmos,
Studi 4, Bologna 2000)
Perrotta, G., ‘Teofrasto Char. v, 8; xiv, 12’, Maia 14 (1962) 252–5
Pickard-Cambridge, A., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, rev. J. Gould and
D. M. Lewis (Oxford 1968)
Pinzger, G., Über die Charaktere des Theophrast i–ii (Ratibor 1833, 1839∗ )
Pritchett, W. K., ‘The Attic Stelai: Part ii’, Hesperia 25 (1956) 178–317
Rabe, H., ‘Rhetoren-Corpora’, RhM 67 (1912) 321 –57
Radermacher, L., ‘Exkurse zu Theophrasts Charakteren’, Annuaire de l’Institut
de Philologie et d’Histoire orientales et slaves (= Mélanges Émile Boisacq 2) 6
(Brussels 1938) 203–9
530
BIBLIOG RAPHY
Reiske, J. J., ‘Specimen emendationum in Graecos auctores’, Miscellanea

Lipsiensia Noua 5 (1747) 725–6
Animaduersiones ad Auctores Graecos 1 (Leipzig 1757) 96–105
Lebensbeschreibung (Leipzig 1783)
Briefe, ed. R. Foerster, ASG 16, 1897
Ribbeck, O., ‘Kritische Bemerkungen zu den Charaktern des Theophrast’,
RhM 25 (1870) 129–46
‘Ueber den Begriff des erwn’, RhM 31 (1876) 381 –400
Alazon. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Ethologie und zur Kenntniss der griechisch-römischen
Komödie (Leipzig 1882)
‘Kolax. Eine ethologische Studie’, ASG 21 (1884) 1 –114
‘Agroikos. Eine ethologische Studie’, ASG 23 (1888) 1 –68
Rijksbaron, A., Grammatical Observations on Euripides’ Bacchae (Amsterdam
1991)
Roscher, W. H., Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie
(Leipzig and Berlin 1884–1937)
Ruge, W., ap. Bechert et al. (1897)
Sakolowski, P., ‘Zu Theophrasts Charakteren’, in Griechische Studien Hermann
Lipsius zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht (Leipzig 1894) 157–8
Salvo, I. di, Koraı̀s e i Caratteri di Teofrasto (Palermo 1986)
Schmidt, K. F. W. (review of Bassi 1914), GGA 184 (1922) 8–10
Schmidt, M., ‘Vermischtes’, Philologus 15 (1860) 540–4
Schweighäuser, J. G., Les Caractères de Théophraste, traduits par La Bruyère, avec des
additions et des notes nouvelles (Paris 1802)
‘Lettre à M. Millin, sur quelques passages de Théophraste, Suidas et Arrien’,
Magasin Encyclopédique . . . rédigé par A. L. Millin 49 (1803) 438–56
Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik (Munich 1939–53)
Sicherl, M. (review of Steinmetz i), Gnomon 36 (1964) 17–24
Siebenkees, J. P., Anecdota Graeca (ed. J. A. Goez, Nuremberg 1798)
Sittl, C., Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig 1890)
Sitzler, J. (review of Pasquali 1919), BPhW 40 (1920) 797–804
Stark, R., ‘Zu Theophrasts “Charakteren”’, RhM 103 (1960) 193–200
Stefanis (Stejan), I. E., ‘Oi recentiores twn Caraktrwn tou Qeojrtou’,
EEThess 4 (1994) 63–121 [1994a]
‘O *reko tou Qeojrtou’, EEThess 4 (1994) 123–36 [1994b]
‘E«ka©e toÅ Carakt¦ra toÓ Qeojrtou’, in Filermou ìAgphi
(Festschrift A. G. Tsopanakis) (Rhodes 1997) 589–96
Stein, M., Definition und Schilderung in Theophrasts Charakteren (Stuttgart 1992)
Stone, L. M., Costume in Aristophanic Comedy (New York 1981)
Terzaghi, N., ‘Sui Caratteri di Teofrasto’, BPEC 6 (1958) 5–17
Thompson, D. W., A Glossary of Greek Birds (London and Oxford 2 1936)
Thompson, H. A., and Wycherley, R. E., The Athenian Agora, xiv: The Agora of
Athens (Princeton 1972)
531
BIBLIOG RAPHY
Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions (Berlin and New York 1980–96)
Todd, S. C., The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford 1993)
Torraca, L., ‘Per una nuova edizione critica dei Caratteri di Teofrasto’, RAAN
49 (1974) 69–106
‘Un nuovo codice teofrasteo: Oxoniensis Bodleianus Auct. T.V.6 ’, in I. Gallo
(ed.), Contributi di Filologia Greca (Naples 1990) 19–43
‘La tradizione manoscritta dei Caratteri xxiv–xxviii di Teofrasto’, in Storia
Poesia e Pensiero nel Mondo antico: Studi in onore di Marcello Gigante (Naples
1994) 607–16 [1994b]
Unger, G. F., ‘Zu Theophrastos’, Philologus 43 (1884) 218; 44 (1885) 740; 45
(1886) 132, 244, 277, 368, 438, 448, 552–3, 613, 641 ; 46 (1888) 56; 47
(1889) 374–5
Usener, H., ‘Lectiones Graecae’, RhM 25 (1870) 603–5
Ussing, L., ‘Bemaerkninger i Anledning af en ny Udgave af Theophrasti Char-
acteres et Philodemi de vitiis liber decimus’, ODVF 1868, 101 –13
Veitch, W., Greek Verbs Irregular and Defective (Oxford 1887)
Vellacott, P., Theophrastus, The Characters; Menander, Plays and Fragments (Har-
mondsworth 1967)
Wachsmuth, C., Die Stadt Athen im Altertum (Leipzig 1874–90)
Wendland, P., ‘Zu Theophrasts Charakteren’, Philologus 57 (1898) 103–22, 192
Werle, W., Eis quae in Theophrasteo Characterum Libello offendunt, quatenus Transpo-
sitione Medela afferenda sit (Marburg 1887)
Whitehead, D., The Demes of Attica 508/7–c.250 BC (Princeton 1986)
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, ‘Coniectanea’, Ind. schol. aest. Gött. 1884,
16–17 = Kleine Schriften 4 (Berlin 1962) 580–1
‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 33 (1898) 522; 37 (1902) 328 [1902a] = Kleine Schriften
4 (1962) 33, 164
Griechisches Lesebuch (Berlin 1902) i.2 302–8, ii.2 188–93 [1902b]
Wilhelm, A., ‘Zu Theophrasts Charakteren’, AEM 17 (1894) 45–6
Wilkins, J., The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy (Oxford
2000)
Wilson, N. G., ‘The Manuscripts of Theophrastus’, Scriptorium 16 (1962) 96–102
Wilson, P., The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (Cambridge 2000)
Wycherley, R. E., ‘The Market of Athens’, G&R 25 (1956) 2–23
The Athenian Agora, iii: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton 1957)
The Stones of Athens (Princeton 1978)
Zell, K., De Theophrasteorum Characterum Indole et genuina Forma ex Aristotelica Ratione
repetenda Commentationes I–II (Freiburg 1823–5) = Opuscula Academica Latina
(Freiburg 1857) 1 –62
Zingerle, A., ‘Zu Theophrast’, ZöG 39 (1888) 706–7; 44 (1893) 1066–7; 54
(1903) 202
532
INDEXES
I I N D E X V E R B O RV M
(The copula ka© and the definite article are not indexed.)
brwto XIV 11 idw IV 12; XV 10
gaq» [pr. 2]; VIII 2; XIV 7; A«q©oy XXI 4
XXI 11 ; XXIII [def.], 7; a³ma XXV 7
XXVI 2 uide belt©wn, a¬rw VIII [11 ] (med.) [pr. 3]
bltito arw II 10; IX 3; XXVIII 3 (med.)
ganaktw I 3 † ; XVII 4 III [4]; XXVII 5
gnow XXIX 4 † ima XXVII 7
gnÛ XXIII 6 a«crokrdeia XXX [def.]
gor II [9]; III 3; V 7; VI [10]; a«crokerd XXX 2
VIII [11 ]; XI 4; XIX 6; XXI 8; a«cr» II [def.]; VI [def.], 5; IX
XXII 7; XXVI 3 [def.]; XXX [def.]
gorzw V 8; IX 5; XIV 9; a«cÅnomai XII 10; XXVI 4
XVI 10 a«tw XXX 16 (med.) XVIII 7
gora±o VI [2], 9 atio XXVI 5
groik©a IV [def.] kair©a XII [def.]
groiko IV 2 kairo XII 2
gr» II 12; III 3 bis; IV 3; X 8; kteion III [4]
XIV 3, 11 ; XXVII 10 kolouqw XVIII 8; XXIII 8
grupn©a IV 11 k»louqo IX 3; XXI 4; XXVII 12;
gw IV 13; IX 5; XXI 3; XXX 7
XXX 6 kou©w XV 6
gwg XXVIII [def.] koÅw I 5; II 4; VI [2, 7]; VII 2, 7;
gÛn XXIX 2 VIII 3, 4, [11 ]; IX 3; XII 9;
daxomai XIX 5 XXV 4
delj XXIX [7] kra XXV 2
dikw I 3 † ; XXIX 5 kra©a VII [def.]
dik©a XVIII [def.] kr©beia [pr. 2]
dolch III 2 kribä XXVI 4
dolec©a III [def.] kr»druon XI 4
e© XX 9 lazone©a XXIII [def.]
hd XIX [4]; XX 2 lazÛn XXIII 2
hd©a XX [def.] le©jw XXI 10 (med.) V 6; X
r [pr. 1 ] [14]; XXIV 11 ; XXX 8 bis
qerapeu©a XIX [def.] ìAlxandro XXIII 3
ìAqhn XVI 8 lw IV 7
ìAqhna±o XXI 11 lhq XVII 7; XXIX 4, [7]
qr»o VII 4 ll I 4, 6, [7]; V 3; VI 5, [7]; VIII
a«do±on XI 2 [11 ]; X 13; XV 4; XVI 6, 9;
533
I N D E X V E R B O RV M
ll (cont.) nagka±o XVIII 7

XVII 4, 5; XVIII 6, 8; XIX 3; ngomai XX 3
3; XXII 6, 10; XXIV 9, 13; nadcomai XII 4
XXVIII 3; XXIX 5 nairomai X 8
ll ì oÔn VIII 9† naiqh©a XIV [def.]
llo [pr. 5]; I 6; II 3, 4, 10; IV 5; na©qhto XIV 2
XI 3; XIV 12; XIX 9; XXI 8; naicunt©a IX [def.]
XXIV [def.]; XXVI 2 bis; na©cunto IX 2
XXIX 4; XXX 7 llw VI nakoin»omai IV 3; XII 2
[7]; XXIV 13 nakÅptw XI 3; XXV 2
ll»trio IX 7; XXV 7; XXVII 10; nal©kw XII 11
XXX 8 nlwma XXIII 5
l IX 3; X 13; XIV 11 ; XXX 18 namnw XV [9]
luitelä VIII [11 ] namimnkomai IV 11
ljiton XVI 6 naneÅw XXIII 5
lj» XIX 2 nplew XXV 7
ma II 2, 3, 10; IV 8; V 5; VI 9; VII napnw VII 3
7; IX 4; XI 4; XIX 5 bis; XX 6; nap»nipto XIX 5
XXIII 2; XXIV 7; XXV 2, 8; natrjw II 8
XXVII 10, 13 naÅromai VI [2]; XI 2
maq©a IV [def.] nat©qhmi XXI 10; XXII 2
mlei II [9]; V [2], 9; VI [3]; XIII najrw XXX 17
[def.]; XVI [def.]; XVIII [def.]; najor VIII [5]
XIX 3; XXI 11 ; XXIII [def.]; ndrpodon XVII 6
XXIV 12; XXV [def.]; XXVI ndri XXVII 12
3; XXVII 5; XXVIII 4; XXX ndrok»balo XXVIII 3
13, 18 neleuqer©a XXII [def.]
mnmwn XXVI 4 neleÅqero XXI [def.]; XXII 2
mjibhtw XXIII 3 neu XX [def.]
mj»tero V 2; XII 13; XX 8 nr V 2; XIII 10; XXI 11 ;
n I [def.]; II [def.], 5; IV [def.]; V 7; XXVI 2; XXIX 5
VI [7]; VII [def.], 9, 10; X 8; ìAnqethriÛn XXX 14
XIII [def.]; XV 4, 5 † , 6, 9, 10; nqrÛpino [pr. 2]
XVI [def.], 3, [13]; XVIII 6 bis, nqrwpo [pr. 2]; II 2 bis; III 3, [4];
9; XX 4; XXI [def.]; XXIII VIII [11 ]; XX 8; XXV 6;
[def.]; XXIV 11, 13; XXV XXVII [16]; XXVIII 4; XXIX
[def.]; XXVI [def.]; XXVII 4 bis
[def.], 13; XXX 6, 10, 20 ter n©thmi XIII 2; XVIII 4; XXII 3,
n (= n) III 3; VII 2 bis; VIII [5], 12; XXVIII 5 (med.) XII 9;
7; XVI 8, [14]; XVII 7; XVIII XIV 5
4, 7; XXVI 2; XXVII 5; XXIX ntallttomai IV 10
5 uide n nterat XXVII 9
nabllomai IV 4; XIX 6; XXI 8; nt©diko V 3; XXIX 6
XXVI 4 ntiknmion XIX 3
nagkzw IX 7; XIV 10; ìAnt©patro XXIII 4
XXVIII 4 ntiproe±pon XV 3
534
nup»dhto XVIII 4 pod©dwmi XVII 9; XXI 5 bis;

nw IV 4; XX 6; XXIV 8 XXX 13 bis, 20 (med.) X 7;
xio III 3; IX 6; XVII 6 bis; XV 4; XXII 4; XXX 5, 7, 12 †
XVIII 6 podokimzw IV 10; VI 5, 9
xi»w VI 4, [7] pokaq©thmi VII 6
paggllw VII 7; XIV 7; XXI 11 pokalw XXVIII 6
bis pokmptw XXII 9
pagoreÅw X 13; XIII 9 poke©rw XXI 3 (med.) IV 13;
pgcomai XII 12 V6
pgw VI 6; XXV 6 pokr©nomai VII 3; VIII 3; XVI 6
paitw X 2; XII 11 ; XVIII 5; pokrÅptw XXV 4
XXX 7, 9, 10, 20 polambnw XIV 8
pallttw VIII [11 ] (med. uel polaÅw XXIII 3
pass.) III [4]; V 2; VII 7; IX 4; p»llumi XV 7; XXIII 2; XXVI 5
XV 5; XXVI 3 (med.) XXVI 5
pal» XX 9 pomÅttomai XIX 5
pantw II 5; IV 13; VIII 2; pon©ptomai XVI 2
XI 2, 8 ponoomai VI 2
pantikrÅ XXI 7 p»noia VI [def.], [7]
parnomai XXIII 4 ponuc©zw XXVI 4
prcomai X 3 poptÅw XIX 10
ìApatoÅria III 3 poromai I 6
paudw VIII [11 ] poro XXIII 5
peimi XVII 7 porr©ptw XIX 5
pe±pon] pe©paqai XII 10 potllw XVII 2; XVIII 2;
prcomai VI [7]; VII 6; IX 8† ; XI XXIV 13
7; XVI 14; XXI 11 ; XXII 3 poterw IX 2
pcomai XXVIII 5 pot©qhmi IX 3; XIV 6; XXII 5
pneia XV [def.] potr»paio XVI 6
pio II 6 poja©nomai XXVI 2
pitw I 6; IV 3 pojrw IX 7; XXI 8
pit©a XVIII [def.] pojor XXX 15
pito XVIII 2 poyw XXX 11
ploÓ 1 [7] proboÅleuto III [def.]
pneut© II [9] ptw XVIII 4 (med.) XII 14
p» [pr. 5]; II 2, 3, 10; IV 3; VI 9; pÅreto III [4]
VII 7; IX 3, 4; X 5; XI 7; XVI pwqw XV 6†
2 bis; XVII 3; XIX 5; XXII ra II 10; XVIII 7
[def.† ]; XXIV 2; XXV 2, 5, 7; rgÅrion IV 10; XIV 8; XV 7;
XXVIII 2, 4; XXX 16 XVII 9; XVIII 2, 5; XXI 5
pobllw VIII [11 ] rguroqkh X [14]
poblpw II 2, 10 rkeia V [def.]
pogrjomai XXX 16 reko V 2
pogui»w VII 4 rkw V 3
podhmw XXIII 3; XXX 7, 19 riqmw X 3; XVIII 3
podidrkw XVIII 8 ritw IV 8
535
ìAritojän VII 7 VIII 4, [5], 7, [11 bis]; IX 4; X

rmonik» V 10 [14]; XIII 10; XIV 7 bis, 11 † ;
rotron IV 11 XVI 6, 8; XVIII 8; XIX 2; XX
rpzw IX 4 2, 8, 9, 10; XXI 9; XXII 9;
rrÛthma XIX 2 XXIII 2, 3, 9; XXIV 8, 9, 12;
rrwt©a XXX 14 XXV 2, 4, 8; XXVI 5 ter;
*rtemi X 3 XXVII 13; XXVIII 2, 4, 5;
rti I 4; XII 7; XX 2 XXIX 4 ter, 5 ter; XXX 14, 18
rto IX 3; XXX 2 (‘ipse’) I 5; II 5, 11 ; IV 9; V 5, 10;
rÅtaina IX 8 VII 2, 7; VIII 4, 8, 10; IX 3, 8;
rca±o III 3 X [14]; XIII 10; XIV 6; XVIII
rc VI [7]; XII 9; XXIV 5; 2, 4; XX 5; XXI 2; XXII 7;
XXVI 3; XXVIII 2, 5 XXIII 2; XXIV 8; XXV 8;
ìArc©a IV 13 XXVI 3; XXVII 15; XXVIII
rcitektonw II 12 2, 3; XXX 11
rcomai [pr. 5]; II 2; (‘solus’) XXII 13
XXVIII 2 aËt» (= aut») I 2; II 2; III 2; IV
rcwn IV 13; XXVI 2 3 bis, 7; V 5, 8; VI 6, [7]; VII 2,
ìA©a XXIII 3 10; IX 5, 6, 7, 8; X 8 bis; XII 3,
ìAklhpie±on XXI 10 4, 12; XV 6; XVI 9, 14; XVIII
k» V 5 4, 5, 8, 9; XIX 2, 5; XX 6, 9
p©dion XXI 6 ter, 10; XXI 4, 11 ; XXII 2, 4, 5
p© XXVII 3 bis; XXIII 2, 4 bis, 5, 6, 8, 9;
te±o XIX 8 XXIV [def.], 7, 9, 11 ; XXV 2,
ìAte±o VIII 4 3; XXVI 4; XXVII 11, 13, 15;
trgalo V 9 XXVIII 4; XXX 3, 4, 7 uide
tron XIV 12 aut»
tu IV 13 aËt» (¾ aÉt») [pr. 1 bis]; IV 13;
cmwn IV [def.] VII 3; VIII [7]; X 9; XXVI [6]
colomai XII 2 aÉcmw XXVI 4
tel XXIII 4 jairw II 3; XXX 14 (med.) II
trap» XIII 6 11 ; XX 5
aÉqdeia XV [def.] j©hmi [pr. 4]; V 2
aÉqdh XV 2 j©tamai III 3
aÉla©a V 9 crito XXVI 4
aÎleio XVIII 4; cri XIX 4
XXVIII 3 curon II 3; IX 7
aÉlw XIX 9; XX 10
aÉlht VIII 4 bad©zw XVI 8; XVIII 8;
aÉlhtr© XI 8; XIX 9 XXIV 4
aÎrion XIII 7 bakthr©a V 9
aÉtokrtwr XXVI 2 balane±on IV 12; VIII [11 ]; IX 8;
aÉt» XIX 5; XXVII 14; XXX 8
(‘ille’) [pr. 2, 3 bis, 5]; I [4]; II 2, 4, balaneÅ IX 8
6, 10; III 3; IV [4], 7; V 2; VI ballntion XVII 5
[7 bis], [10]; VII [def.], 2, 10; bptw IX 8
536
baile©a XXVI 5 † 13; XV 5 † ; XVI 7; XVII 7;

baileÅ VIII 6 XVIII 5; XXII 3; XXIII 5;
bdelur©a XI [def.] XXIV 13; XXV 2; XXVI 5;
bdelur» XI 2 XXVII 2; XXVIII 2 bis;
belt©wn [pr. 3]; III 3; XXIII 3 XXIX 2, 3 †
bltito II 2; V [def.]; XVIII gignÛkw III 2; XIII 5
6 glaÓx XVI 8
b©o [pr. 2]; XXVIII 6 gl©comai XXVI [def.]
bi»w [pr. 2] glätta VII 9
blbh XX [def.] gnqo VI 9
blajhmw XIX 7 gnajeÅ X [14] uide knajeÅ
bow VIII 7; IX 8 gnÛrimo XXX 10, 17, 20
BohdromiÛn III 3 g»nu IV 4; XVI 5
bouleÅomai I 4; XXVI 2, 3 goÓn XXVIII 2
boÅlomai I 4; II 10; III [4]; IV 13; V grmma XXIII 4
3; VII [def.], 10; VIII [def., 11 ]; grammate©dion VI 8
XII 10, 13; XIII 9; XIX 10; grjw XVII 8; XXIV 12, 13
XXIV 13; XXVI 4; XXIX 4 gumnzomai V 7
boÓ IV 5; XXI 7 bis; XXVII 5 gumnion V 7
bradut XIV [def.] gumn» IV [4]; XVIII 4
Buzntion V 8 gunaike±o II [9]; XII 6; XXII 10
gun III 2; X 6, 13; XI 2; XIII 10
Galxia XXI 11 bis; XVI 12 bis; XVIII 4; XIX
gal¦ XVI 3 5; XXI 11 ; XXII 10; XXVII 15;
gamw XXX 19 XXVIII 3, 4
gmo XII 6; XXII 4
gr [pr. 1, 2, 3]; II 2; III [4]; IV 10; daim»nio XVI [def.]
VIII 7, [7], 8, [11 ter]; XI di III 3
[def.]; XVIII 9 bis; XX 9 bis; dknw XIV 5
XXIII 5; XXVI 5 bis; XXVIII dakrÅw XIV 7
4; XXIX 4, 5 uide kaª gr dktulo XIX 3; XXI 10
gr oÔn XXVIII 3 Dmippo III 3
gatr V 5 dane©zw VI 9 (med.) I 5; IX 2, 7;
ge VII 3 bis, 4, 7; XIV 12; XXVIII XXX 3, 7
5; XXX 8 uide kaª mn . . . ge daneitik» XXIII 2
ge©twn XIV 5 dapnh XXII [def.† ]
gelw I 2; IX 4; XIX 8 daÅ XIX 4
glw II 4 djnh XVI 2
genealogw XXVIII 2 d [pr. 1, 2, 3, 4 bis]; I 2, 5 ter, 6; II
gennw XXVIII 4 [def. bis], 2 bis, [9]; III [def.], 2,
gno [pr. 3 bis, 5]; XII 6; XIX 2; 3 bis; IV [def.], 2, 3, 5; V [def.],
XXVI 5; XXVIII 2 2, 5, 7 bis, 8, 9; VI [def.], 2, 5,
gewrgw III 3 [7 ter], 8 quater, [10]; VII
g¦ III 3; X [14]; XIV 12; XXV 2 [def.], 2, 7; VIII [def.], 2 bis,
g©gnomai I 4, 6† ; II 2; III 3; VII 7; [6], 7, 8, 10, [10, 11 quater]; IX
VIII 8, 9† ; IX 4; XII 10; XIV 2, [def.], 2, 3, 4 bis, 5, 7, 8; X
537
[def.], 2, 10; XI [def.], 2; XII 2; d¦mo VII 7; XXI 11 ; XXII 3;

XII 8, 10; XIV [def.], 2, 8; XV XXVI 2; XXIX 5
[def.], 2, 11 ; XVI 2, 4, 12; XVII dhm»io XXIX 2 dhmo©ai
2; XVIII 2, 7; XIX 2, 3; XX 2, XXX 7
8; XXI [def.], 2, 8, 11 ; XXII dhm»th X 11 ; XXV 8; XXVIII 2
[def.], 2, 4, 5; XXIII [def.], 2; dpote [pr. 1 ]
XXIV [def.], 2, 8, 12; XXV dpou XXVIII 3
[def.], 2; XXVI [def.], 2 bis, 3; di c. acc. XXIII 9; XXVI 4; XXX
XXVII [def.], 2, 5; XXVIII 14 bis c. gen. X 8
[def.], 2 quinquies, 4 quater; diabllw XVI 3
XXIX [def.], 2, 4, 6; XXX diaggllw XXII 9
[def.], 2, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18 uide diagignÛkw III [4]; XXV 3
kaª . . . d d©aita V 3; XII 12; XXIV 4
de± [pr. 2]; 1 [7]; II 2; III 3; VIII 10; diakonw II [9]; XXII 4;
XVI 11 ; XVII 9; XXVI 2 bis, 3 XXX 16
bis; XXIX 5 diakont©zomai XXVII 13
de±gma XXIII 2 dialgomai I 3; VI [7]
de©knumi XI 2, 8; XX 10 dialog©zomai I 5
deil©a XVI [def.]; XXV [def.] dialÅomai XII 13
deil» XXV 2 diamnw X 9
de±na XV 2; XXVIII 2 dianmw XXX 4 bis
dein» I 6; IV 6; V 9; VI 5; VII 4, 6; dinoia [pr. 1 ]
IX 8; X 10; XII 8; XIV 8; XV dipeira XIII 9
11 ; XVI 7; XVIII 6; XIX 3; diate©nomai X [14]; XXIX 4
XX 7; XXI 6; XXII 6; XXIII diat©qhmi XXIV 12
3; XXIV 7; XXVI 3, 4; diatoxeÅomai XXVII 13
XXVIII 5; XXIX 5, 6; diatr©bw V 7; XXV 4
XXX 9 diatrÛgw XVI 6
deipnw IX 3; XXI 2 diajrw XXII 11
de±pnon III 2; V 5; XVII 2; XXI 2; dijoron X [def.]
XXIV 2 diayiqur©zw II 10
deiidaimon©a XVI [def.] didakale±on VII 5; XXX 14
deiida©mwn XVI 2 didakal©a XXVII [16]
dka XXIII 6; XXVI 2 didkalo VII [5]; XXII 6
dekadit XXVII 11 didkw XII 9
dekzw XXVI 4 d©dwmi II 6; IX 3, 5; XII 8; XIII 9;
Deljo© XXI 3 XV 5 † , 7; XVII [def.]; XVIII 7;
domai XVII 6; XX 4; XXI 8; XXIII 4, 5; XXV 2;
XXV 2 XXVI 4; XXVIII 4; XXX 4, 18
demwtrion VI 6 die©rgw XIII 5
dcomai XXI 11 diexrcomai [pr. 5]; I 6; III 2; VIII 9;
d [pr. 5]; 1 [7]; II 4; III 3, [4]; XVI 3; XXIII 2; XXVIII 3 †
VIII [11 ]; XIV 12; dihgomai III 2; IV 3; V 8; VII 7;
XXIII 4 VIII [6]; XI 9; XII 12; XX 6;
dhmagwg» XXVI 5 XXI 11 ; XXIII 2; XXV 7, 8
dhmokrat©a XXVIII 6 dighi III [def.]
538
dihmereÅw VIII [11 ] aut» I 2, 6† ; VIII 8; XI 8; XIV 10;

dikzw XXVII 9 XXII 10; XXV 8; XXVII 12;
d©kaio V 4; XIII 3; XVII 8; XXX 16, 17, 18
XXVI 5; XXX 4 w V 5; VIII 3; X 8; XIX 3;
dikatrion XI 7; XXVI 4; XXIX XXIV 11 ; XXV 6
5, 6 bdomo XVI 10
d©kh VI 8; VIII [11 ]; XI 7; XII 4; ggrjw XXVIII 2
XIV 3; XVII 8 ggÅh XII 4
dimoir©a XXX 4 gguht XVIII 6, 7
DionÅia III 3 bis ggÅ XXVII 15
Di»nuo XXII 2 ge©rw XX 2
dior©zomai XI [def.] gkalw XVII 8
di»ti XVII 4 bis gkroÅw IV 12
d© XIV 11 gkÛmion III 2
dijw X 6 gÛ [pr. 2]; XVIII 9; XXVIII 3, 4
dijqra IV 13 me, m I 6; VII 3; XVII 3; XX
diÛkw VI 8 7; XXVIII 3 † moi, mo© I 6;
dokw I [def.]; IV [def.]; V 3; VII 3, 9; VIII 3; XIV 13; XV 2;
VI [7]; VII [def.], 9; VIII 3; XVII 2; XXIV 13
XIII [def.]; XVI [def., 13]; dra XXVII 14
XXI [def.]; XXIII [def.]; qlw I 2; XV 10; XVI 9; XXIV 6
XXIV 8; XXV [def.], 2; e« [pr. 4]; II 3, 10; III 3; IV 13; VII
XXVI [def.]; XXVII [def.], [def.], 3, 9; IX 4 ter; X 9;
14; XXX 12 † XVII 3, 6; XVIII 4 ter; XXV
d»xa IX [def.] 2 bis
dorkdeio V 9 e«decq XXVIII 4
d»ru XXVII 3 e«kÛn II 12
dracm VI 9; XXIII 2; XXX e«mi]
13 ti [pr. 5]; I 10; III [def.], 3 ter; V
drpanon IV 11 [def.], 10; VI [def.]; VII 9 bis;
dÅnamai II 4; VI [2]; XIII 2, VIII [def.], 2, 4, [11 ]; IX [def.];
4, 6; XIV 6; XVIII 5; XX 9; X [def.], 13; XI [def. bis], 5;
XXIII 5; XXX 7 XII [def.]; XIII 10; XIV [def.];
dunat» II [9]; VI [3] XV [def.], 2; XVII [def.];
dÅo II 3; XXIII 8 XVIII [def.], 3; XIX [def.]; XX
dunteukto XIX [4] [def.], 8, 9 bis, 10; XXII [def.];
dutuc VIII 9 XXIII 2; XXIV [def.]; XXV
ducreia XIX [def.] [3]; XXVI 2, 4 bis; XXVIII
ducer XIX 2 [def.], 2 bis, 3, 4; XXIX [def.,
dÛdeka XXVI 5 2], 3 bis, [7 bis]; XXX [def.]
dwmtion XIII 8 ti (= xeti) I [7]; II [13]; X [14]
e«i III 3 bis; VI [10]; VIII [5, 11 ];
n II 3; IV 11 ; IX 4; X 7; XVI 3, 4 XXIII 3; XXV 3, 4
bis, 6 bis, 12; XX 10; XXIX 2, tai XXI 4; XXIV 13
4 uide n §an IV 13; XIII 10
539
e«mi] (cont.) e«rcomai V 5; VII 5; X 12; XIV 3;

§i V 7; VI [7]; XVIII 6, 7; XVI 10; XX 2; XXI 7; XXIV
XXII 6 11 ; XXVII 6
åi [pr. 3]; XXVII 15 e«kroÅw XXX 11
eh II 2 eodo XXI 7
e²nai I [def.]; II [def.], 7, 12; III 3, e«p©jrhmi XXX 6
[4]; IV [def.], 10; V 3, 5; VI [7]; e«prttw X 5
VII [def.], 9; VIII 8; X 4, [5]; e«jrw II 6; XV 7; XVII 9; XXIII
XIII [def.], 3; XVI [def.], 9, 6 (med.) XXII 10; XXVIII 4
[13]; XIX 2 bis, [4]; XX 9, [9]; ew XVI 10
XXI [def.]; XXIII [def.], 9 bis; e²ta [pr. 5]; III 2 bis, 3; IV 7; IX 2;
XXV [def.], 2; XXVI [def.], 2 XIII 6; XXV 4
bis; XXVII [def.]; XXVIII 2; k [pr. 2 bis]; II [10]; III 3; IV 6; V 9;
XXIX 3, 4, 5 bis; XXX 4, 9, 14 VIII 4, 8; X 8, [14]; XII 7, 9;
eqai [pr. 3]; III 3 XVI 5; XVIII 4; XXII 3, 7, 9,
Ànto XIV 9 Àntwn XXIII 10; XXIII 3; XXV 7; XXVI 3,
[def.] 5; XXVIII 2 bis, 3, 4; XXX 7
qi XVII 9 tw XXVI 2 kato III 2; VI 4; X 3; XVII 9;
e²pon] XXIII 6; XXV 8
e«pe±n II 2, 3, 6, 8, 10; III 2; IV 9, ktero [pr. 2]
13; V 4; VII 2; VIII 2, 3; IX 3, ëEkth XVI 7
8; XIII 8, 11 ; XIV [def.], 7, 12, kbllw X 6; XIX 8
13; XV 2, 5 † , 10; XVII 2, 3, 5, kbohqw XXV 3
6, 7, 9; XVIII 9; XX 10; XXI kdcomai XXIX 6
11 ; XXIII 4, 5, 6; XXV 6; kd©dwmi XVI 6; XVIII 6; XXII 4,
XXVI 5; XXVIII 3, 5, 6; 8; XXX 10 (med.) XXX 19
XXIX 3, 4, 5 bis kdÅw XXV 2
epa V 2; VII 3, 7; XV 7; ke± IX 8†
XVI 8; XXV 4; XXVIII 4; ke±no I 6; II 10; VIII 2; XVIII 4;
XXX 8 XXVII 13; XXX 17
e«p XX 7 kqÅomai XVI 6
ephi V 10; VIII 7 kklh©a IV 2, 3; VII 7; XXVI 4;
erwn [pr. 5]; I 2, [7] XXIX 5
e«rwne©a [pr. 4, 5]; I [def.] kkor©zw XXII 12
e« [pr. 5]; II 4, 10; III 3; IV 2, 12, 13; klgw VI 4, 9
V 8 ter; VI 9; VII 5 bis, 6; IX 4, kmanqnw XXVII 7
5; XII 6, 7; XIV 3, 10, 11 ; XV kpmpw XXV 4
5 † ; XVI 2, 15; XVIII 4; XIX 2, kp©nw XIII 4
6, 7; XXI 3; XXII 6, 10; XXIII kplttw I 6; IV 5
2, 4, 6, 9; XXIV 12; XXVI 5; kpwma XVIII 7
XXVII 4, 5, 6, 10; XXVIII kt©qhmi [pr. 3]
[def.], 2, 4; XXIX 4; XXX 14 kt©nw XXX 14
bis, 18 XXV 6 ktr©bw XXI 10
e³ VII 4; XXIII 2, 4, 6 bis; XXV 7; kjrw XIV 13
XXVI 2 ter, 5 la©a X 8
e«gw XXV 8 laion XVI 5; XIX 5; XXX 8, 18
540
lttwn X [14]; XXIII 9; XXX ntugcnw I 4; II 3; VII 2, 3; XII

13 [def.]; XXIV 2, 8; XXV 7;
lcito X 3; XXX 7 XXIX 2, 4
lgcw XIII 3 nÅpnion III 2; XVI 11 ; XXV 2
leuqer©a XXVIII 6 nuja©nw V 9
leÅqero XI 2; XXIX 4 xagwg XXIII 4
lko XIX 3; XXV 5 xarno XVIII 5
ëEll [pr. 1 ] xrcomai XVI 10; XIX 6, 7;
llboro XX 6 XXVI 4
í Ellhn [pr. 1 ] xhght XVI 6
llÅcnion X 13 xkonta XXVII 2
mba©nw XV 6 x©thmi XXVII [16]
mbllw IV 8; IX 4; XIV 10, 11 ; xodo XXII 10
XVIII 4 x»mnumai VI 8; XXIV 5
mw III 3 xw XXX 17
mpeiro XXIX 2 ort XV 5 †
mp©mplhmi XX 9 paggllomai XIII 2
mp©ptw II 2 pagwg XVI 7
mp»lhma VI 9 painw I 2; II 4, 10; V 2
mproqen XVIII 8 pn II 4; XVI 4; XXIV 10
mjobo XXV [def.] panagkzw XIII 4
n [pr. 2]; II 2 bis, 11 ; IV 3, 5, 12; panrcomai I 4; IX 2; XXV 7
V 7, 8, 10; VI 3 † , 4, 8 bis; peidn V 10
VII 7 bis, 9; VIII 7, 8 bis, peid XXVIII 2
[10, 11 ter]; IX 8; X 2, [14]; XI peircomai V 10
3; XIII 8; XIV [def.], 4, 11 ; XV pente©nw VIII 7
[def.], 8; XVI 4, 5; XVII 5; peÅcomai XV 11
XVIII 8; XIX 3 bis, 5 bis; XX pcw XX 4
6; XXI 8, 10; XXII 3, 4, 7; p© c. acc. [pr. 4]; I [def.]; II 2; V 5;
XXIII 2 bis, 3 ter, 5, 9; XXIV VII 3, 4; IX 7; X 2 † ; XI 8; XIII
2, 4, [4], 8; XXV 5, 6; XXVI 4 10; XIV 5; XVI 5, 9 bis; XVII
ter; XXVII 7, 11, 14; XXVIII 2 2; XIX 4; XXI 2; XXIII 8;
bis, 3, 6; XXIX 5, 6; XXX 8, 9 XXIV 11 ; XXV 4, 8; XXVII 3
nant©on XX 7 ter; XXIX 6; XXX 6 c. gen.
ndon IV 7; XVI 10; XXI 6; XXII 8; V 5; VII 7 bis; XVI [13]; XX
XXX 11 10; XXI 6; XXII 5; XXVII 10;
neka IX [def.] XXIX 5 c. dat. I 2; III 2; IV
nenkonta [pr. 2] 5; V [def.]; XVI 14; XXIX 3, 6
nepide©knumai V 10 piba©nw XVI 9
nqumomai II 2; VIII 9 pibllw VII 3; VIII 2 (med.) II
niaut» X 13 10
nio XXIX 4 p©boulo I [7]
nna [pr. 2] pigelw II 3, 4
ntaÓqa XVI 4 pigrjw XIII 10; XXI 9; XXII 2
nte©nw XIII 3 p©deixi V 10
nteuxi V [def.]; XX [def.] pidxio XXIX 4
541
pidhmw III 3 ruggnw XI 3

p©doi XXII 3 rcomai II 8; IX 7; XVI 6, 9;
piqum©a XXIX [def.]; XXX [def.] XXIII 8
pikatallag XXX 15 rwtw II 10; IV 13; V 2; VIII 2 bis;
pilambnw XXX 12 † (med.) IV XIII 7; XIV 2; XV 2, 4; XVI 6,
9; VII 7; VIII [5] 11 ; XVIII 4; XX 7; XXV 2;
pilanqnomai VII 3; XIV 3; XXVIII 2
XXV 4; XXVII 2 q©w XIX 4, 5; XX 6; XXIV 11
p©lhpto XVI 15 tiw II 10 bis; V 5; X 11 ; XXIV 9;
pimelomai XII 10; XXI 4; XXX 2, 16
XXIV 9 ta©ra XVII 3; XXVII 9
pimelä XVI [13] tero I 6† ; IV.10; V 10 bis; VII 3;
pirrptw XVI 6 IX 3; XII 14; XVIII 2; XXVI
pihma©nomai II 4 [6]; XXVIII 4
pikptomai XVIII 4 ti [pr. 2]; II 10
pikopomai X 9 to [pr. 2]; II 3; XXVII 2
pikÛptw XXIX 3 eÔ II 12 bis; VII 3; IX 4; XIII 9; XX
p©talma V 8† 9 bis; XXIV 3
p©tamai XXVI 2; XXVII 13 eÉaggel©zomai XVII 7
pitllw XXIV 13 eÉgen XXVIII 2 bis
p©teuxi XII [def.] eÉdokimw II 2; VII 7
pitdeio IV 7; X 5; XXX 7, 11 eÉergetw XVII 9
pitdeuma VIII [11 ] eÉhmerw XXI 11
pithdeÅw [pr. 2] eÉqÅ IV 13; VI 9; VIII 2; XVI 4;
pit©qhmi XXX 7 (med.) I 2 XXX 4
pitimw XIX 9 eÎluto VI [10]
pit©mhi XVII [def.] eÎnoia XIII [def.]
pitrpw XXIV 4 eÎnou XXIX 5
pijan XI [def.] eËr©kw 1 [7]; XIII 6; XIV 6; XV 4;
pone©dito XI [def.] XVII 5 bis; XXX 9
po XXVI 2 eÎruqmo II 7
ran©zw I 5 EÉrÛph XXIII 3
rano XV 7; XVII 9; XXII 9; eÉrwtiw X [14]
XXIII 6 eÉcmwn [pr. 3]
rw XII 3; XXVII 9 eÉjra©nw IV 5; XX 10
rgzomai IV 3; XVIII 6 eÉju XXIX 4
rga©a VI 5; XXIII 2 eÎcomai XVI 11 ; XIX 8
rgatrion VI [10]; VIII [11 ] eÉwcw VIII 3 (med.) IX 3
rgolbo VIII 4 jlkw XXX 10
rgon III [4]; VI [def.]; XXV 3 jhbo V 7
rgÛdh VI [10] j©thmi [pr. 1 ]; II 5
reqim» XXVII [16] jodeÅw VI 9
rw XVII 7; XXIV 10 j»dion XXX 7
r¦mo VIII [11 ] jorw XVI 14
ëErmajr»dito XVI 10 cqr» I 2
ëErm¦ XXX 9 c±no VI 8
542
ci I [7] ¡n©ka XXX 6

cw [pr. 1 ]; I 2; II 3 bis; III 2; V 6, 9; ëHrkleion XXVII 5
VI 3 † , 8, [10]; VIII 2, [5]; IX 4; ìHr©o XIV 13
X [14]; XIII 9; XV 6; XIX 2 ¡räion XVI 4; XXVII 4
bis, 3, 4; XX 8, 9; XXI 6; XXII ¢toi VII 7
[def.† ], 6; XXIII 3, 8; XXIX 5 ¡ttomai I 2; XI 7; XXIX 2
yw XIV 11 ; XVI 10 ¨tton XVIII 4
w II 5; XVI 3; XVIII 9; XX 4;
XXX 10 qko XIV 5
qlatta III 3; XVI [13]; XXIII 2
zw III 3 qarrw XXV 5
ZeÅ III 3; XIV 12; XVII 4 qtton uide tacÅ
zhl»w [pr. 4] qaÓma VI 4; XXVII 7
zhtw XIV 6; XXIII 8; XXV 4 qaumzw [pr. 1 bis]; I 5; V 2; VIII
zwgrw VIII 6 [11 ]; XVII 3, 6; XXVI 4
zwm» VIII 8; IX 4; XVII 2; XX 6 qa V 7; IX 5; XXX 6, 14
zwr» IV 6 qe XVI 11
qeomai II [13]; V 10; VII 8
¢ I 6, [7]; II 2 bis; IV 5 bis, 11 ter; VI qatron II 11 ; V 7; XI 3 bis; XIV 4
6, [7]; VII 7 bis; VIII 4 ter; X qeatrÛnh XXX 6
5, 8; XI 9; XIII 4; XVI 3, 11, qe» IX 3; XV 11 ; XVI 11 ; XXI 11 ;
14, 15; XXIII 5; XXIV 7; XXV XXV 2
5; XXVI 3 ter; XXVII 7; qerpaina XXII 10
XXIX 5; XXX 7, 19 qerapeÅw XIX 3; XXV 5
¡gomai XIII 6 qewrw IV 5; VI 4, [7]; XI 3;
¢dh [pr. 1, 4]; I 5; V 10; VII 10; VIII XIV 4
8; XII 5, 8; XIII 8; XX 3, 10 qhri»w XIX 3
¡don V [def.] qhaur» XVII 5
¡dÅ IV 2; XIV 12; XX 8 ¡dw QheÅ XXVI 5
XI 3 ¤dita XXVIII 6 ql©bw V 5
§qo I [7]; VI [2]; VIII 2 † ; XXVII Qouriak» V 9
[16] Qritta XXVIII 2
¤kw VIII 8; XII 7, 11 ; XV 7; qr©x II 3
XVIII 7; XXIV 7 qugthr XXII 4; XXX 19
¡lik©a XXVII [def.] qÅlako IV 11 ; XVI 6
¡l©ko XXIII 2 qÅlhma X 13
¨lo IV 12 qÅmon IV 2
¡me± [pr. 1, 3]; VII 10 bis; XXVI 3 qÅra IV 9; XVIII 4; XXVII 9;
bis XXVIII 3
¡mra II 3; III 3; VI 9; VIII 8; X qÅw IX 3; XII 11 ; XIX 5;
[14]; XVI 2, 10; XX 7 † ; XXIV XXI 7 bis, 11
7; XXVI 4; XXVIII 4, [4];
XXX 10 «atr» XIII 9
¡miol©a XXV 2 ¬drÅomai XVI 4
¤miu XVII 7; XXX 16 ¬reia XVI 14
¡miwblion VI 9; X 2 ¬ere±on XXII 4
543
¬ereÅ XXVII 8 kaª gr XXVIII 4

¬ereÛunon XXII 4 kaª . . . d I 2; II 3, 4 ter, 6; III [4];
¬er» XVI 4 ¬er»n XVI 2 ¬er IV 6, 8, 10, 12 bis; V 3, 4, 5, 6
XXI 11 bis, [11 ] bis; VI 4, [7], 9; VII 3, 5, 8;
¬kan» VI 8; XXVI 2; XXIX 4; VIII 8; IX 4, 5; X 9, [14 bis];
XXX 2 ¬kanä V 2 XI 5, 6, 7, 8; XII 10; XIII 4, 10;
¬lar» XVII 9 XV 7; XVI 7, 10, 15; XVIII 6,
¬mtion II 3, 4; V 6; VIII [11 ]; X [14 8; XIX 4, 9,10; XX 6, 7, 8, 10
bis]; XVIII 6; XIX 6; XXI 8, bis; XXI 4, 6, 9; XXII 6, 7, 10;
11 ; XXII 8; XXVI 4; XXVII 5; XXIII 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; XXIV 10;
XXX 10 XXV 3, 6, 7; XXVI 4; XXVII
¬matim» XXIII 8 14; XXVIII 3; XXIX 3, 4 bis, 5
¯na V 3, 10; X [14]; XI 3; XIV 7; bis; XXX 14, 15, 17
XVIII 8; XX 2; XXII 6; kaª . . . ka© II [13]; X [14]; XIX 2
XXVII 5; XXX 14, 16, 19 uide te (. . .) ka©
«»omai X [14] kaª mn I 6 kaª mn . . . ge VIII 2
¬ppzomai XXVII 10 kain» VIII 2, 3; XXI 5
¬ppeÅ XXI 8 ka©per II 3
¯ppo XXIII 7; XXVII 10 kair» X [def.]
¯thmi III 3; IV 5; IX 4; XI 4; XVIII kak©a XXIX [def.]
7; XXI 9; XXIII 2; XXV 3 kakolog©a XXVIII [def.]
«cur» VIII 9† kakol»go XXVIII 2
«cÅ XXVI [def.] kak» XXVI 5; XXVIII 2, 3 † , 6
w [pr. 1 ] kakä I 2; VI [2]; XIII 9;
ì Ijikrat© II 7 XXII 6; XXVIII 4, 6 uide
«cquopÛlion VI 9 ce©rwn
kalw V 5 bis; XI 5; XII 6; XVI 4,
kaqa©rw XVI 7; XX 6 14; XVII 2; XX 5; XXI 2 bis;
kaqper XXVIII 2 XXVII 5; XXVIII 2 bis
kaqzomai XXII 13 kalliteÅw XXVII 8
kaqeÅdw V 5; VII 10; XIII 8; XIV 4; kallÅnw XXII 12
XX 2 klluma X 6
kqhmai II 2; V 7; XI 3; XXV 6; kal» XXI 11 kalä VIII 2
XXIX 5 kruon XI 4
kaqiznw IV.4 karjologw II 3
kaq©zw XVIII 3 (med.) V 5 Kandro VIII 6, 9
kaq©thmi [pr. 5] kat c. acc. [pr. 3, 5], I 4; III 2, 3;
ka© (‘etiam’, ‘re uera’) [pr. 1 ]; I 5; II IV 11 ; VI 4; VII 4; VIII [11 ];
3, [9]; V 3, 9; VI [3], 5, 8; VII XIV 13; XVI 12; XVIII 3; XXI
4, [5], 7, 10; VIII 8 bis, [11 ter]; 8, 11 ; XXIII 6 bis; XXX 14
IX 5, 6, 8; X 10; XII 8, 12; XIII c. gen. I 2; VII 7; XVI 14;
5, 11 ; XIV 8, 12; XV 7, 11 ; XVIII [def.]
XVII 3, 7; XIX 3; XXI 11 ; kataba©nw IV 13 bis
XXIII 6; XXIV 12; XXVII 5, katabllw VIII 2 †
13; XXVIII 4; XXIX 6; XXX katagignÛkw I 6
13, 18 katgnumi X 5; XXVII 10
544
katgw XXVI 5 † klop VI 6

katade [pr. 3] klÅdwn XXV 2
katkeimai XVIII 4; XXI 2; knajeÅ XVIII [6]
XXV 8 koimomai XIX 5
katale©pw [pr. 3]; VII 7; XIV 4; koin» V 3; XXVI 4; XXIX 5;
XXX 7, 16 XXX 9, 16, 17
katalÅw XXX 3 ko©rano XXVI 2
kataponw VIII [11 ] kolake©a II [def.]
kataromai XV 8 kolakeÅw II def.]
kattrwma XXII 5 k»lax II 2, [13]
katat©qemai XVIII 9 koloi» XXI 6 bis
katajrw [pr. 5]; II 2; VII 3 k»lpo XVI 15
katajilw XVII 3 kom©zw XXV 8 (med.) IV 13;
katajr»nhi IX [def.]; XXIV XXIII 3; XXX 15, 20
[def.] kon©tra V 9
katacw XVI 5 (med.) IX 8 k»po XIV 10
katcw II 4; XXVI 2 k»ptw X 11
kathgorw XII 6 k»rax XXV 6
kathgor©a VII 7 k»rdax VI 3
kattÅw XXII 11 kour XXVI 4
ktw XX 6; XXIV 8 koure±on XI 9
ke±mai [pr. 1 ]; XXIII 2 k»jino IV 11
ke©romai X [14]; XXVI 4 krtito V 2
keleÅw II 4, 5; V 5; IX 6; XII 4; XV krto VIII [11 ]
7; XVI 14; XVIII 8; XX 10; kraug XXV 4
XXIII 6; XXIV 7; XXV 3, 4, kra IX 3 bis, 4; X 11 ;
5; XXVII 13 XXII 4, [7]
kernnumi XIII 4; XXX 5 kre©ttwn XVI 8
kra XXII 11 kreopÛlh IX 4
krdo IX [def.]; XXVI [def.]; krhn XVI 2
XXX [def.] kriq IX 7
kejlaion II [13]; XIV 2; krinok»raka XXVIII 2 †
XXIV 12 kr©nw VII 8; XII 5; XXIV 4;
kejal II 3; XVI 14; XXVII 10 XXIX 5 bis, 6
khl© XIX 6 kri» XXVII 9
k¦po X 8; XX 9 kr©i XXIX 6
khrÅttw VI 5 krokÅ II 3
kibwt» X 6; XVIII 4 krotw XI 3; XIX 9
kinduneÅw XXV 7 krÅptw VIII 8
k©cramai XXX 20 ktomai V 9
k©wn III 3 kubernth XXII 5; XXV 2
kldo XXI 9† kubeÅw VI 5
kle© X [14] KÅziko V 8
kle©w XVIII 4 kukeÛn IV 2
klimkion XXI 6 bis kÅklo XXII 9
kl©nh X 6; XXII 12 kulike±on XVIII 4
545
kÅlix X 3 l¦ro XXVIII 3

kÅminon X 13 l©an IV 10
kunrion XXI 9 libanwt» XVI 10
kÅptw XXIV 8 liqok»llhto XXIII 3
kÅwn IV 9; V 8; XIV 5; XXVIII 3; l©qo XV 8; XVI 3, 5
XXIX 5 lipar» XVI 5
kwlÅw VII 5, 8, 10; XX 3 log©zomai X 4; XIV 2; XXIV 12
kwmzw XII 3 logim» XXX 15
kwmik» VI 3 † logopoiw VIII [def.], [11 ]
logopoi©a VIII [def.]
lagcnw XXV 6 logopoi» VIII 2
lqrai I 2 l»go [pr. 4]; I [def.], 6; II 2; III
Lakedaim»nio VII 7 [def.]; VI [def.]; VII [def.], 7;
Lakeda©mwn V 9 VIII [def.], 3, [5], 7, [11 ]; XIII
lakka±o XX 9 [def.]; XIV [def.]; XV [def.];
Lakwnik» V 8 XVII 8; XXIV 12; XXVI 3, 4;
lalw I 2; II 10; IV 2; VII 3, 10; XX XXVIII [def.]; XXX 14
2; XXIV 8 loidorw XXVIII 5 (med.) VI
lali VII [def.] [2, 7]
llo VII 2, 9 loidor©a VI [10]
lambnw I [1 ]; IV 10; VII 10; IX lop X 5
[def.], 4; XII 12; XIII 9; XIV 6; l»omai IX 8; XVI 14; XXIV 11 ;
XVI 2; XVII 8; XVIII 7, 9; XXVIII 4
XX [def.], 8; XXIII 2; XXIV LÅkwn VIII 4
13; XXV 4; XXVII 9; XXVIII lupw XII [def.]
5; XXX 15, 16 lÅph XIX [def.]; XX [def.]
lamp XXVII 4 LÅandro VII 7
lampr» XXI 11 luitelw X 7
lanqnw IV 7 lÅcno XVIII 4; XXX 18
lcanon XX 9; XXII 7 lÅw XXVI 5 †
lgw [pr. 4 bis], I 2 bis, † 6, 6; II 3, 4,
10, [13]; III 3; V 4, 5; VI [7]; mageire±on VI 9
VII 2, 3, 9, 10; VIII 2 ter, 3, [6, mageireÅw VI 5
7], 8, 9, [10]; X 13; XIV 12, 13; mgeiro XX 9
XV 4, 7; XVIII 9; XX 8; XXII mqhma XXX 14
11 ; XXIII 3, 4; XXV 2, 3; ma©nomai XVI 15
XXVI 2; XXVII 2; XXVIII 3, Makedon©a VIII 8; XXIII 4
4, 6; XXIX 4, 5, 6 uide MakedÛn XXIII 4 †
e²pon, rw makr» III [def.]; XII 7; XXVII 12
leitourgw XXIII 6 malak©zomai I 4; XIII 9
leitourg©a XXIII 6; XXVI 5 malakä II 10
lpra XIX 2 mlita IX 4; XVIII 7
lept» XIX 6; XXVI 4 mllon 1 [7]; XXV 5
leuk» V 6 mmmh XX 7
lecÛ XVI 9 manqnw VII 2; XII 9; XXVII 2, 3,
lkuqo V 9; X [14]; XVI 5 13
546
manik» XXVII [16] met c. acc. XIII 7 c. gen. IV 7;

mnti XVI 11 XIII [def.]; XVI 12 bis; XVIII
marturw XII 5 5; XIX 5; XXI 8, 11 ; XXIII 3;
mrtu XIV 8; XVIII 5 XXVII 11 ; XXX 17
maomai XX 5 metabllw VIII 8 (med.) V 6
matig»w XII 12 metad©dwmi IX 6
maclh XIX 4 metaxÅ VI [7]; VII 3, 4, 7
mch VII 7; VIII 4, 6, [7]; metatrjw XI 3
XXV 7 metajrw X 6
mcomai VI 4; XIII 5; XIV 9; metrcomai XX 10
XXIII 8; XXV 5 metrw IV 7; XXX 11
mga IV 2; VI [7, 10]; XI 7; XXI 7 mtron XXX 11
me©zwn IV 2; XXX 7 m [pr. 3]; I 5 quater, 6, [7]; II 10; III
mgito III 3; IV 3 2, 3; V 2, 3; VI 6; VII 3; VIII 2;
meqÅkomai XI 9 IX 4 bis, 5; X 7, [14]; XI 5; XII
meqÅw XII 14 10; XIII 2, 6, 9; XIV 6; XV 2,
meidiw VIII 2 3, 4, 11 ; XVI 3, 6, 9, 12; XVIII
me©zwn uide mga 5, 7, 8 bis; XIX 3; XXII 6 bis,
meirkion XXVII 4 10; XXIII 9; XXIV 8, 9, 13 bis;
me© (mn) X 2; XVI 12; XXX XXV 2; XXVII 13; XXVIII 5;
14 bis XXX 2, 14 ter, 16, 17, 19
mlan XXII 2 mhd VII 3; XXIII 2, 4; XXVIII 5
mla XIX 2, 4; XX 6 mhde© (mhqe©) I 4; IV 5; V 8; VI 5;
meletw XXVII 10, 15 X 12; XVIII 4, 9; XXVI 2
mli V 8 mhdpw XII 14
Melita±o XXI 9 bis m¦lon II 6
mllw VII 3; XI 9; XIII 7, 11 ; XIV mn uide kaª . . . mn
3; XX 3; XXIII 9 mhr» X [14]
mmnhmai I 5; XXIV 3 mte III [4 bis]; IV 5 bis; X 13
memyimoir©a XVII [def.] septies; XXX 20 bis
memy©moiro XVII 2 mthr VI 6; XIII 8, 10; XIX 7; XXI
mn [pr. 1 ]; I 5; III [def.], 2, 3; IV 3, 11 ; XXVIII 2
5; V [def.], 5, 7, 8; VI [7 bis], 8; mia©nw XVI 9
VIII [11 ]; IX [def.], 2, 3, 4 bis; mikrolog©a X [def.]
XVIII 7; XXI 8; XXII 4, 5; mikrol»go X 2, [14]
XXVIII 2; XXIX 4; XXX 7 mikr» V 2; X 4, 11, 13, [14]
mn oÔn [pr. 4]; I [def.]; VIII [5]; XII mikrojilotim©a XXI [def.]
[def.] mikrojil»timo XXI 2
mntoi XXVIII 2 miw I 2 † ; XXVIII 4
mnw XXII 8 miht» XXVI 5
mer© XVII 2; XXX 4 miq» XXX 14 bis, 17
mro VI [7]; VIII [11 ]; IX 5; XXX miq»w XXX 17 (med.) XI 8;
7, 9 XXII 4, 10; XXIV 7
meoporw XXV 2 miqwt» IV 3; XXIII 9
mo X [14]; XXII 3; XXVI 4 bis mn XXI 5; XXX 13
met» II 3; XIX 6; XX 9 mn¦ma XIII 10; XVI 9; XXI 9
547
m»li XVIII 4 o²da I 5; VII 2; VIII 8, 10; XXIII 9;

molubr» IV 10 XXVIII 3 † e«d¦ai [pr. 4]
m»no VIII 10; XIV 4; XIX 9; okade XXI 8, 11 ; XXII 9
XXVI 2 m»non V 3; VIII o«ke±o IV 3; XVIII 7; XXVIII 5, 6
[11 ]; XVIII 7 o«ke©w XXIII 3
Moue±a XXII 6 o«kth IV 3; X 5; XII 12; XX 7;
mocl» XVIII 4 XXX 9
muw XXV 2 o«kw VI 6; XXIII 9; XXVI 3
mu±a XXV 5 o«kht» XXVI 4
mÅron IV 2 o«k©a II 12; IV 9; VI 6; VII 6; VIII 8;
muropÛlion XI 9 IX 7; X 2 † ; XVI 4, 7; XX 9;
murr©nh XVI 10 XXII 12; XXIII 9; XXVIII 3
mÅrton XI 4 okoi XXX 7
mÓ XVI 6 o«konom©a [pr. 3]
mutrion III 3 bis o«k»ito XXII 4
mÅwy XXI 8 o«nrion XVII 2
o«nopwlw XXX 5
naumac©a VIII [11 ] o²no II 10; XIII 9; XVI 10; XXX 5
nekr» XIV 13; XVI 9 o«noc»o XIX 10
nmw XXVI 4; XXX 4 oomai VIII 9; XIV 13
ne»ttion II 6 o³o I 2; II 2; III 2; IV 2; V 2; VI 2;
nwta III 3 VII 2; VIII 2; IX 2; X 2, [6];
njw VI 3 XI 2; XII 2; XIII 2; XIV 2; XV
nikw VIII 6, [11 ]; XVII 8; 2; XVI 2; XVII 2; XVIII 2;
XXII 2 XIX 2; XX 2; XXI 2; XXII 2;
noumhn©a IV 13 XXIII 2; XXIV 2; XXV 2;
nÓn III 3 XXVI 2; XXVII 2; XXVIII 2;
nÅx III 2; IV 11 ; XIV 5 XXIX 2; XXX 2
nutzw VII 7 ½l X 13
½ligarc©a XXVI [def.]
xen©zw XX 10 ½ligarcik» XXVI 2
xnion XXX 7 Âlo I 6; X [14]; XVI 10; XXVIII 3;
xenodok©a XXIII 9 XXIX [7]; XXX 14
xno III 3; V 4, 8; IX 5; XXIII 2; í Omhro XXVI 2
XXVI [6]; XXX 3 ¾milw [pr. 2, 3]
xÅlino XXII 2 ¾mil©a II [def.]; XV [def.]
xÅlon XXIII 4; XXX 18 Àmnumi VI [2]; XIII 11 bis
Âmoio II 12; V 5; XXVIII 4; XXIX
¾d» IV 5, 13; XII 7; XV 8; XVI 3 3, [7 bis] ¾mo©w [pr. 1 ]
bis; XVII 5; XVIII 8; XXII 9; ¾mologw I 4, 5; XIII 3; XXIX 4
XXIII 3; XXIV 4, 8; XXVIII ¾m»tropo XXVI [6]
3 bis; XXX 9 ½neirokr©th XVI 11
½doÅ V 6; XIX 4 Ànoma II 2; XIII 10; XXII 2;
Àzw IV 2; XIV 12 (med.) XXIII 6
XIX 5 ½nomat© XI 5
o³ XIII 6 Àno IV 5
548
Àntw XVII 3 7; XXII 11 ; XXIII 3, 4, 6, 8, 9;

Ànux XIX 2 XXIV 10, 13 bis; XXV 2, 4;
Àxo XXX 18 XXVI 2 bis, 3 bis
Àpiqen XVIII 8 oÉ(k) [pr. 1 ]; I 2 † , 5 bis, 6 ter; II 3, 4;
¾plomco V 10 V [def.]; VI [7], 9 bis; VIII 3,
¾p»teron I 6 [11 bis]; X 8; XI [def.]; XIII 5;
Âpw [pr. 3]; VII 10; X [14]; XIII 9; XIV 9; XV 5 † , 6, 7, 9; XVII 2,
XVIII 5; XX 10; XXI 4, 7, 11 ; 4, 5; XVIII 6, 7, 9; XIX 2; XX
XXIII 4; XXIV 13; XXVII 8, 8 bis, 9; XXIII [def.], 5, 6, 8;
14 XXIV 5; XXV 6; XXVI 2, 4;
¾rw I 5 bis, 6; II 3, 6; III 2; IV 5; V XXVIII 3; XXIX 4, 5 bis
2; VIII 8; X [14]; XI 6; XVI 4, oÕ V 7
11, 15; XXI 7; XXV 4, 5 oÉdamo± XXIII 3
Àrexi XXI [def.] oÉd [pr. 1 ]; VI [7], 9; VII 9;
½rqä [pr. 4 bis]; II 4 XXIII 6
½r©ganon X 13 oÉde© et oÉqe© II 2; IV 2; VII 2;
¾r©zomai [pr. 5]; VII [def.] VIII 3, [5]; IX 8; XV 9; XXII
¾rmaq» VI 8 11 ; XXIV 6; XXVIII 4;
½rniqok»po XVI 11 ; XIX 7 XXIX 3
Âro V [def.]; IX [def.]; X 9; XIV oÉdpote XVII 5
[def.]; XX [def.] oÔn uide ll ì oÔn, gr oÔn, mn oÔn
ìOrjeotelet XVI 12 oÉr XXVII 3
½rcomai VI 3; XII 14; XV 10; oÔ II 10
XXVII 15 oÉ©a XVII 7
Â [pr. 2, 3 bis]; I 2, 4; II [13]; III 2 oÎte X 8 ter; XV 6 bis, 10 ter; XVI
ter, 3; V 3; VII 3 bis. 7; VIII 9 ter; XXIV 11 ter
[def.], 4, [5], 8, [11 ]; IX 2; XI oÕto [pr. 3]; I 2, 6; II 2, 10; III 2
3, 5; XII 10; XIII 2, 5; XVIII 6 bis; IV 9, 11 ; V 7, 8, 10 bis; VI
bis; XXI 6; XXII 13; XXVIII 4, [7], 9; VIII [6], 7, 8 bis, 9;
3 † , 4; XXX 20 IX 2, 7; X 13; XI 8; XIII 10;
¾hmrai X 9; XXI 10 XIV 3, 6, 13, XV 7; XVI 6;
Âo [pr. 3]; IX 6; X 4; XIII 4; XIV XVII 9; XVIII 4; XIX 2; XX
13; XXIII 2, 3, 6 10; XXI 10, 11 ; XXIII 2, 3, 6
Âti III [4] bis, 9; XXV 5, 8; XXVI 2 ter, 3
¾tioÓn VII 2 ter, 5; XXVII 2; XXVIII 2 bis,
½toÓn IX 4 3 † , 3 bis, 4, 6; XXIX 2
Âtan IV 5; V 7; VI [7]; VII 4, 10; XI oËto© II 10
3 bis; XVI 11 ; XVIII 7; XXII oÌtw() [pr. 5]; I 5; VIII [11 ];
6, 8; XXIV 8; XXVI 4; XII 12; XVI 2, 8; XVII 6;
XXVII 15 XVIII 4; XIX 9; XXVI 3;
Âte XIV 12; XVII 9; XX 7 XXVII [16]
Âti II 3, 8 bis; IV 13; V 10; VII 2 bis, ½je©lw XIV 8; XVII 9; XVIII 5
3, 9 bis; IX 8; X 13; XI 9; XII Àji XVI 4
12; XIII 8, 10, 11 ; XIV 7, 9; ½jliknw VIII [11 ]; XII 4;
XV 5 † ; XV 7 bis; XVII 7 bis; XXIX 2
XIX 9; XX 9 bis, 10 bis; XXI ½comai XXVII 10
549
Àclo VI [7]; XXVI 3 paraggllw XIII 7

½y I 4 parag©gnomai I 4; VIII 4; XIV 7;
½yimaq XXVII 2 XXIII 4
½yimaq©a XXVII [def.] pardeigma [pr. 3]
Àyon XX 9; XXVIII 4; XXX 16 paradeipnw VIII [11 ]
½ywnw IX 4; X 12; XI 8 bis; pardoxo I 6
XVIII 2; XXII 7 paraqeomai [pr. 2]
parakaqzomai III 2
pqhma [pr. 5] parakqhmai XIV 2; XXIII 6;
paidagwg» IX 5; XXVII 13 XXV 2, 5; XXVI 4
paidrion XXII 10; XXIII 2; parakalw V 3; XI 8; XII 7;
XXX 8 XX 10†
paideÅw [pr. 1 ]; XXVII 14 parkeimai II 10; XX 6
paidi XI [def.] parakolouqw [pr. 4]
paid©on II 6; V 5; VII 10; XIV 10; parakoÅw VIII 8
XVI 12; XX 5; XXII 6; XXVII paralambnw XIV 8
13; XXVIII 4 parale©pw VII 3; XVII 8
paidotr©bh VII [5] pararrgnumi VI [7]
pa©zw XXVII 12 parae©w III [4]
pa± II 11 ; VII 5; VIII 4; XII 12; parito XX 10
XIII 4; XIV 9; XVIII 2 bis, 8; parakeuzw XX 10 (med.) XXI
XX 10; XXI 8; XXIII 8; 11
XXIV 12; XXV 2, 4; XXX 15, parakeuatik» V [def.]; XIX
16 bis, 17 [def.]
plai VII 3 paratrjw XXII 13
pala©tra V 10; VII 5; XXVII 6 paratttomai XIII 7
palaitr©dion V 9 parathrw VII 3
pala©w XIV 10; XXVII 14 parat©qhmi X 11 ; XXX 2
palillog©a I [7] paratrcw XVI 3
pal©mphxi XXII 11 pare©a XVI 4
plin XXIV 8 preimi I 2; V 3; VI 8; XII 5, 13;
pandoke±on XX 9 XIII 4; XX 10; XXIII 4
pandokeÅw VI 5 parembllw VII 7
panguri VI [7] parrcomai II 5; XI 5; XVI 5;
pantodap» [pr. 2] XVI 8; XXI 11 ; XXVI 2;
pantopoi» VI [2] XXVIII 3
pnu VIII [11 ]; X [14] precw XV 2; XXX 7
pppa VII 10; XX 5 par©thmi XII 12; XXV 4
pppo XIX 2 paroim©a XXIX [7]
par c. acc. V 5; XVII [def.]; XXI parrh©a XXVIII 6
2; XXVII 2 c. gen. IV 10, 13; p [pr. 1 ]; II 2, [13]; IV 3, 7; VII 2;
XVII 9; XVIII 9; XX 10; VIII 7, 8 bis, [10]; IX 3; X 4;
XXIII 4; XXVII 3, 13; XXX 3, XIII 10; XVII 8; XVIII [def.],
7, 10, 15 bis, 18, 20 c. dat. IV 4; XX 10; XXI 8; XXV 5;
3; VIII 8; IX 3; XX 9; XXVII XXVIII 4; XXIX 3
8; XXX 3, 18 pcw XXVI 4, 5
550
patr II 6; V 5; XIII 8, 10; XIX 2; p©ptw X 8; XVI 5; XXV 4;

XXVIII 2 XXVII 10
patr© XXVIII 2 piteÅw I 6 bis; VIII 7
paträio XXIII 9 planw XXVIII 3 †
pttw IX 3 pleqr©zw XXIII 2
paÅomai [pr. 1 ]; II 4; XI 3; XIX 9; pleitki V 6
XXVI 3, 5 ple±to uide polÅ
pacÅ XIX 6 ple©wn, plon uide polÅ
pezomac©a VIII [11 ] pleur XIX 4
pez» XXV 3 plw XXV 2 bis
peirw IV 7 (med.) [pr. 5] plhg XII 12; XXVII 9
pleku V 5 pl¦qo VII 7; XXVI 4
pempt» VIII 8 plqw XI 4
pmpw XV 5 † ; XVIII 2; XXII 6; pln II 2; XXII 4; XXIV [def.]
XXIII 2; XXX 14, 19 plrwma XXVII 7
pnte XXIII 5 plhizw XXVI 3
pra [pr. 4] peraitrw XXIII 4 † plh©on III 2; V 7
per© c. gen. IV 3; VIII [7]; XXIII 2, plok I [7]
3; XXVI 3; XXVIII 6 bis plÅnw XXII 8; XXX 10
peribllw V 2 plÛimo III 3
peridw XXI 7 pneÓma II 3
perierg©a XIII [def.] podap» XIII 10
per©ergo XIII 2 p»qen VIII 2
perircomai IV 13; V 10; VI 4 poi XI 6
peri©thmi XIII 11 (med.) poiw III 3; V 8; VII 4; VIII [11 ];
VI [7] XI 3; XIV 2, 11 ; XVI 6; XIX
perikaqa©rw XVI 14 8; XX 9; XXI 5 † , 6, 9; XXIII
perilambnw V [def.] 6; XXIV 3, 12; XXVII [16];
periorw XXV 3 XXVIII 6 (med.) [pr. 4 † ];
periou©a XXII [def.† ] VIII [11 ]
peripatw XVI 2; XIX 2; XX 4; poihtik» XX [def.]
XXI 8; XXIV 2 po±o [pr. 5]; VIII [11 ter]; XX 10
per©pato XII 7 polemik» XXV 6
perirra©nomai XVI 2, [13] polmio XXV 3, 4, 5
peripogg©zw XXV 5 poli» II 3
per©tai VIII [11 ] p»li II 2; V 8; VIII 7, [10, 11 ];
peritllw II 10 XXIII 3; XXVI 3, 4, 5 bis;
periter V 9 XXX 7
peritrcw XVIII 4 pol©th V 4; XXIII 5; XXVI [6]
prnhmi (piprkw) XII 8 pollki [pr. 1 ]; VIII [11 ]; XIII 11
Prh V 9 Polukl¦ [pr. 2, 3]
phdw XXI 6 polukoiran©h XXVI 2
piqanä VIII 9; XXIII 6 Poluprcwn VIII 6
p©qhko V 9 polÅ [pr. 2 ter, 4]; III 3 bis; VI 9;
p©qo XX 9 VIII 8; X 13, [14]; XI 3; XIV 5;
p©nw IV 2, 6; X 3; XIX 5; XX 6 XV 9; XVII 6, 8; XIX 4; XX
551
polÅ (cont.) pr©amai II 6; X 4, 7, 12; XVII 6;

9; XXIII 2; XXV 4; XXX 14 XVIII 2; XXI 6; XXII 10;
ple©wn II 2; III 3; VI 6; XII 8; XXX 8
XIII 4; XXIII 5; XXX 10 pr©n VI [7]
plon XXVIII 4 ple±to pr» VIII 2; XXX 19
XXVIII 6 proaggllw II 8
pompeÅw XXI 8 proairw IV 6
pomp XXVI 2 (med.) XXVI [6]
ponhr©a XXVIII 4; proapotllw XXIV 10
XXIX [7] probllomai XXVI 2
ponhr» III 3; XXIX 4, 6 proqÅmw XII 10
p»panon XVI 10 pro©emai XXIX 5
popanourg©a XX 5 pro©x XXII 10; XXVIII 4 pro±ka
poppÅzw XX 5 VI 4; XXX 6
poreÅomai II 2, 8; IV 2; VII 4; X 8; prok»lpion VI 8; XXII 7
XIII 6; XIV 3; XVI 3, 11, 12; promanqnw VII 5
XXII 9; XXIV 8, 10; XXIX prometwp©dion XXI 7
[7]; XXX 6, 14 prooimizomai [pr. 4]
por©zomai VII 3 prooromai XXII 9
pornobokw VI 5 propmpw V 2; VII 6
pornobok» XX 10 pr» c. acc. I 3 † , 5, 6; II 2, 3 bis, 8
p»rrwqen V 2 bis, 10; IV 3; V 3, 4, 7, 10; VI
PoideÛn III 3; XXVIII 4 [7, 10]; VII 2; IX 2, 7, 8; X
p»o III 3; IV 13; X 3; XIV 13; XV [14]; XI 4, 9; XII 3; XIII 11 ;
4; XVIII 2, 3, 9 XIV 13; XVI [def.], 6, 11 ter,
po»w XXIII 6 12; XVII 7; XXIII 9 bis; XXIV
pote I 5; VII 7 bis; VIII [11 ]; IX 7; 7, 12, 13; XXV 2 bis, 3, 4, 8;
XII 12; XVI 14 XXVI 4, [6]; XXVII 12;
p»te V 2; XIII 7; XXVI 5 XXVIII 3, 3 † ; XXIX 5, [7] c.
p»tero XXV 3 gen. XXX 12 † c. dat. IX 4
potrion XIX 8; XX 10; proagoreÅw V 2; XV 3
XXIII 3 progw XII 8; XXV 2 (med.) V
pot©zw XIII 9 5
p»to XXVII 2 proairomai XXVI 2
pou VII 3; XXVII 5 proanatr©bomai XXVII 6
poÓ XV 2; XXV 4 proapaitw XXX 15
poÅ II 7; IV 2 probllw XXVII 9
prgma [pr. 4]; I 6; III 3; VI [7]; prodihgomai VII 7
VII 3, [7]; VIII 8; XII 5; XIII proepigrjw XIII 10
3; XV 2; XXIX 5, 6 proeruggnw XIX 5
pragmateÅomai XVIII 9 prorcomai I 2; VI [7]; IX 8; XI 4,
prxi I [def.]; VIII [def.]; XIII 7; XII 2, 4; XIII 7, 8; XX 4;
[def.]; XIV [def.] XXII 9; XXIII 7; XXIV 6, 10;
prttw I 4; II [13]; X 10 (med.) XXVI 4
VI 9 procw XVI 6
prw I 3 prokw XVII [def.]; XXIII 4 †
552
pro©thmi XI 9 pwlw I 5 ter; X 7; XI 4; XV 4;

prokalw VI [7]; XXV 3 (med.) XVII 6; XXIII 7, 9; XXIV 7;
IV 9; IX 3 XXX 12 †
pr»keimai [pr. 3] pä VIII 2, 9; XVII 9
prokejlaion II 11 ; XXV 4
prokopomai XXV 4 çidio XIX 2; XX 8
prokunw XVI 5 çajan© XXX 16
prokÅptw II 10 ç¦i XV 10; XXVII 2
prolalw VII [5]; XI 4; çtwr VII 7
XIX 5 çig»w II 10
propattaleÅw XXI 7 ç©ptw XXVII 5
propoiomai I 4, 5; XXIII 7 ëR»do V 8
propo©hi I [def.]; XIII [def.]; çÅgco IV 9
XXIII [def.] çupa©nw X [14]
pr»ptaima XIX 3
propta©w XV 8 abzio XVI 4; XXVII 8
proptÅw XIX 10 alpikt XXV 6
protatw XXIX 6 apr» XIX 5; XXX 8
protttw I 4; XVI 10 hma©nw XXV 6 bis (med.) XVIII
prot©qhmi XVII 7; XXIII 6 4
protrcw II 8; VIII [10]; XXV 5 hme±on VIII 8; XXVIII 4
projrw II 3; XXV 5 ©alon XIX 5
projoitw V 7 ikelik» V 9
projor XXX 19 ©kuo XIV 9
prowpe±on VI 3 † it©zein XX 5
pr»wpon VIII 8; XXVIII 4 itode©a XXIII 5
pr»tero XXIV 6 pr»teron itopoi» IV 7
[pr. 1 ]; XIII 11 ; XVI 3 iwpw II 4; VII 9 bis; XI 3
protrcw II 8 iwp¦i XXII 3
procwrw III 3 klo XXVIII 3
prÅtani XXI 11 bis kptomai I 5; XXV 8
präto II 10; XXVI 5 bis keuzw XX 9
präton [pr. 4, 5]; III 2; IX 2; keÓo X 6
XXV 3; XXVIII 2 khn XXIII 8; XXV 4, 5, 6, 8
ptÅw XVI 15 k©lla XVI 14
PuanoyiÛn III 3 koli» V 9
pukn XVI 7; XXV 6; XXVII 14 k»rodon XVI 14
pÅlh XIV 13 kuqrwpzw XIV 7
pÅndax XXX 11 kÅlax XVI 14
punqnomai VII 7; XVIII 2; kulodyh XVI 6
XXV 2 kÛptw II 4; VII 10
purttw XII 3 obw XXV 5; XXVI 4
pur» III 3 » [pr. 4]
pur»w XVIII 7 ojit V 10
pw XVIII 9 pqh XXV 4
pÛgwn II 3 pndw XIX 8
553
peÅdw XI 6; XXIV 2; XXVII 8 unapodhmw XXX 17

poudzw XXI 2 unarkomai (III [4]
poud I 4; III [4]; XXV 4 unarpzw XXVIII 3
tdion XVIII 3 unaÅxw XXVII 11 †
taqm» IX 4 uncqomai XXIX 5
tmma X 13; XXI 7 undeipnw VII 8; X 3; XX 10;
tejan»w XVI 10; XXI 10 (med.) XXIV 9
XXI 11 undikzw VII 8
tjw XVI 14 undioikomai XXI 11
thl©dion XXI 9 unedreÅw XXIX 6
tigmat©a XXVIII 2 Åneimi [pr. 3]
to II 2; VIII [11 bis] unepilambnomai XXVIII 4
t»ma II 4; VI [10]; XVI 2; XIX 5 unepimelomai XXVI 2
trateÅomai XXIII 3; XXV 3 unrcomai XXVI 3
trathgw VI 9 uncomai XXVIII 3
trathg» V 7; XIII 7 undomai XI 7
tratiÛth VIII 4; XXVIII 2 unqh XI 5
trjw XXVII 14 unhcw VI [10]
troggÅlo V 9 Ånqei VIII [def.]
träma XVIII 4; XIX 5; XXII 5 unqewrw [pr. 2]; VII 8; IX 5
Å [pr. 3]; I 6; VII 3; VIII 2, 7; XVII un©hmi VII 3
3; XVIII 9; XXVIII 3 † e, un©thmi VII 4
II 2, 8 bis; VII 3; VIII 3, 10; unodoip»ro XXIII 3
XXIV 13 oi, o© I 6; II 2, 3; untttw XXIV 9, 12
IX 8; XIV 13; XVII 7 unteret©zw XIX 9
uggenik» XIX 2 unwnomai II 7
uggnÛmh I 2; XV 6 ur©ttw XI 3
uggrjw [pr. 2] uitw X 3
ugkqhmai V 10; XXVIII 5 uje» XIX 5
ugkroÅw XII 13 jairitrion V 9
Ókon V 5 j»dra XIX 6; XXX 11
ukotragw X 8 ced»n XVIII 7
ukojantw XXIII 4 cetlizw VIII 9
ukojnth XXVI 4 colzw XVI 12; XVIII 9 bis;
ullab VI [7] XXIV 5
ullgw XXII 9 col III [4]
ullupomai I 2 Ûizw XXV 7
umba©nw [pr. 1 ] äma XIX [def.]
umbllomai XXII 6; XXVII 4 w©a XXVIII 2
Åmbolon VI 4 w©dhmo XXVIII 2
umpa©zw V 5 w©trato XXVIII 2
umprebeÅw XXX 7
umjrw II [def.]; XVI 9 tain©a XXII 2
umjwnw VIII 7 tala©pwro VIII 9, [11 ]
ungw XXVII 11 ; XXX 18 tlanton XXIII 5, 6, 8; XXVIII 4
unakolouqw XVIII 9; XXII 10 tamie±on IV 6
554
txi [pr. 1 ] t©tqh XVI 12; XX 5

tarttw XVI 8 t©turo V 9
tarac VII 3 toi»de XVII 2; XXIV 2; XXVIII
taricopÛlion VI 9 2; XXIX 2
trico IV 13 bis toioÓto [pr. 3]; I 2, 6, [7]; II 2, 3;
tacÅ I 6; XXIV 13 tacÅ VI [2]; III 2, [4]; IV 2; V 2; VI 2, [10];
VII 3; X [14]; XIX 9 tacw VII 2, 3; VIII 2, [5, 11 ]; IX 2;
XXX 20 qtton I 6 X 2; XI 2; XII 2; XIII 2; XIV
te (. . .) ka© [pr. 2 bis, 3 bis, 4]; XIII 2; XV 2; XVI 2; XVIII 2; XIX
10 2, [4]; XX 2; XXI 2; XXII 2;
teleutw XIII 10; XIV 7; XXI 9; XXIII 2; XXV 2; XXVI 2, 3,
XXVIII 6 4, [6]; XXVII 2; XXVIII 2 bis,
telw XVI 12; XXVII 8 3 † ; XXIX 5; XXX 2, [10], 20
telwnw VI 5 t»ko VI 9 bis; X 10 bis; XII 11 ;
teret©zw XXVII 15 XVIII 5
trpw XX 10 tooÓto VII [5]; X 7
tetra©nw XX 9 traghmat©zomai XI 4
tetr XVI 10 trgo IV 5
tttare XXVII 7; XXX 13 tragwidw XXVI 4
tecn©th XXIII 3 tragwid» XXII 2
tmeron III 3; IV 13 trpeza II 10; V 7; IX 3, 4; XIX 10;
thnikaÓta XXX 6 XXIII 2; XXX 16
T©beio IX 3 traÓma XXV 7
t©qhmi XXIII 6 bis traumat©a XXV 5
t©ktw XX 7 trachl©zw XXVII 5
timw XV 5 † ; XXVI 3 tre± VI 9; XVI 2, 3; XXVII 7;
tim XXI [def.] XXVIII 4
ti [pr. 5]; I 2, 5, 6; II [def.], 2, 3 bis, trpomai [pr. 4]
4, 8, 10; III 2, 3; IV 2, 6, 10, 11 ; trjw V 9; VI 6; XXI 6
V 2, 3; VI 2, [2]; VII [def.], 2, trcw XXV 4; XXVII 4
10; VIII 2 ter, 7, 8; IX 2, 4, 6; X trikonta II 2; XXX 13
2, 4, 7; XI 2, 5; XII 2, 10; XIII tr©bwn XXII 13
[def.], 2; XIV 2, 6, 7, 13; XV 2, trihrarcw XXII 5
4; XVI 2, 3; XVII 2, 6, 9; trihrarc©a XXIII 6;
XVIII [def.], 2, 7 bis, 9; XIX 2, XXVI 5
8; XX 2, 10; XXI 2; XXII tr©odo XVI 5, 14
[def.† ], 2; XXIII [def.], 2; tritt» XXIII 4
XXIV [def.], 2, 7, 9, 12; XXV tr©calkon X 6
[def.], 2 ter, 5; XXVI [def.], 2, tr©cwma II 3
4; XXVII 2; XXVIII 2, 3 ter, tr»po [pr. 1, 3 bis, 5]; I 6;
4; XXIX 2, 4; XXX 2, 14, 18, XXX 12 †
19 bis, 20 troczw XIV 10
t© [pr. 1, 5]; II 2; III 3; VIII 3, [11 ]; tugcnw [pr. 3];
XIII 7; XIV 2; XV 4; XVI 6, XVIII 4
11 ; XX 7; XXV 2; XXVI 2, 4; tÅpo I [def.]
XXVIII 2 tÅch VIII 9; XIV 7
555
Ëbr©zw XXVI 3 jage±n IV 6; VII 8; XIV 5

Ëgi XVII 6 ja©nomai IV [4]
Ëgr» VII 9 jak¦ XIV 11
Ìdwr III 3; XX 9 jak» XXX 18
Ëlaktw XXIX 5 janer» [pr. 5]
Ëme± XXI 11 jkw I 5; IV 2; VII 6; VIII [6];
ëUmttio V 8 X 4; XVI 7; XXIV 2, 3, 5;
Ë» [pr. 3]; IX 5; XVII 7; XXV 2
XIX 2; XXI 3; XXVII 3; jaÓlo [pr. 2]; XXIX 6
XXX 6, 14 jeidwl©a X [def.]
ËpakoÅw IV 9; XXVIII 3 FeidÛneio XXX 11
Ìpeixi XXV [def.] jrw VI 4; IX 6; XV 7; XVII 2;
Ëpr c. acc. X [def.]; XXVII [def.] XVIII 2; XXII 7; XXV 5;
c. gen. XVI 3; XIX 10; XX 8; XXX 7
XXVIII 3 † ; XXIX 4, 5 bis jeÅgw III [4]; VI 8; VII 4; XIV 3
Ëperbol XXI 11 jhm© I 4, 5 bis; II 7, 10, 12; V 5; VIII
Ëperhmer©a X 10 4, 7; XIII 9; XVI 9; XVII 9;
Ëperhjan©a XXIV [def.] XVIII 4; XIX 2; XXII 6;
Ëperjano XXIV 2 XXIII 3, 6, 9; XXVI 5;
Ìpno VII 10; XVIII 4; XXV 6 XXVIII 2; XXIX 3 † , 4, 5;
Ëp» c. acc. [pr. 1 ]; XXIV 9; XXV 4 XXX 4, 9
c. gen. II 3; VII 10; XIV 5; jqggomai VI [10]; VII 2
XVII 3; XX 10; XXIII 4; XXV jqeiriÛdh XIX 4
4; XXVI 3, 4, 5 bis; XXVII 9; jqonw XVII 2
XXIX 4, 6; XXX 9 jiltairo XXIX 4
Ëpobllomai XIX 2 jilw II 6; V 5; XVII 3
Ëp»dhma II 7; IV 2, 12; XXII 11 jiloponhr©a XXIX [def., 7]
ËpozÅgion IV 8 jilop»nhro XXIX 2
Ëpokor©zomai XX 5 jilopon©a XXVII [def.]
Ëpolambnw [pr. 2, 3]; I 6; j©lo II 8; IV 3; VIII 2; XIV 7; XV
II [def., 13]; XXV 5; 7; XVII 2, 9; XX 9; XXII 9;
XXIX 2 XXIV 9; XXV 5, 7; XXVIII 6;
Ëp»lhyi XVIII [def.] XXX 5, 12 † , 19
ËpolÅomai X [14] jiloojw XXIII 4 †
Ëpomnw III 3; VII 10; XV 8; jilotim©a XXII [def.† ]
XXVII 7 jobomai XXV 2
Ëpomimnkw VII 3; IX 4 jober» XXIX 2
Ëp»mnhma [pr. 3] jo±nix X 8
Ëpomon VI [def.] jorw IV 2; X [14]; XXII 11, 13
Ëpopr©amai XXX 12 † jort©on XXX 7
Ëpot»rnumi II 11 (med.) XXII 5 jrthr XXV 8; XXX 16
Ëpot©qhmi XXX 18 (med.) [pr. 5] jr©ttw XVI 15
ËpocÛrhma XX 6 julttw IV 9; XVIII 8 (med.) 1
Ëtera±o IX 5 [7]
Ìteron V 10; XV 7; XVII 4 julth XXV 8
Ìw XIV 12; XVII 4 jÅi [pr. 2 bis]
556
I N D E X O F PA S S A G E S
juteÅw II 12 cr»no [pr. 2]; VI 6; XII [def.]; XV

jwn I [7]; IV 2; VI [7, 10] 9; XXV 4; XXX 19
cru©on XXIII 8
calep» III 3; VII 9; XI [def.] crÛ X [14]
calk©on IX 8 cÅtra X 5; XIV 11
calk» XXX 15 cwr©on IV 9
calkoÓ (adi.) XXI 6, 10 (subst.) cwr© XVII 9
VI 4; XXVIII 4; XXX 9
cama© X 8 yeud VIII [def.]
car©zomai II [13]; XXIV 13 yeudolog©a VIII [11 ]
cri IX 8; XVII 9 yeÅdomai VIII [11 ]
ceimÛn XIV 9 y¦jo XIV 2; XVII 8; XXIII 6;
ce©r V 2; VI 8; XVI 2; XIX 9; XXIV 12
XXV 8 yuc XIV [def.]; XVII 3; XXV
ceir©zw XXX 15 [def.]; XXVIII [def.], 2 †
ceirotonw XXIV 5 yucr» XX 9, [9]; XXVIII 4
ce©rwn I [def.]; XXVIII [def.]; yucrä II 4
XXIX 6
celidÛn VII 9 ß VIII 9
cq II 2, 3 å [pr. 2, 3]; XX 7; XXI 11
c©lio XXIII 6 Ýd©nw XX 7
citwn©ko XIX 6; XXV 2 Ýqw II 4; XV 6
col XX 6 ì Wide±on III 3
col©kion IX 4 Ýnomai IX 6; XV 4; XVII 6
cor» VI 3 † Ýnht XII 8
c»rto IV 8 Ýnhtiw XXIII 7
crw IV 11 ; IX 7; XVIII 7 (med.) Þ I [def.], 5; II 2, 4, 10 bis; III 3
[pr. 3 bis]; I 6; XIX 5; XXVI 3; sexies; V [def.], 4; VI [10];
XXIX 2; XXX 10, 17 VII 3, 9; VIII 6, 8; IX [def.];
crw XXX 13 XIV [def.]; XVII 8, 9; XX
cr XVI 6 [def.], 6, 8, [9]; XXI 11 ; XXIII
cr¦ma XXIII 2 2, 3, 4, 5; XXV 3, 4, 7, 8;
crhmat©zw VII 4 XXVI 2, 4 quater, 5; XXVII
crnnumi, -Åw V 10; X 13 13; XXVIII 2; XXIX 3 ter, 4, 5
crimo VII 3; IX 4 bis
crht» II 6, 10; V 6; XIII 10; ãper [pr. 5]; XIX 8; XXVIII 3
XXIX 3 ter ãte IV [4]; VII 3, 7; X 7; XIX [4];
cr±ma V 6 XX [9]
II I N D E X O F PA S S A G E S
(An asterisk indicates a new emendation)
Achaeus Aelian
TrGF 5.2 234, 235 VH 5.5 425*
19.2 235 7.13 429
557
Aeschines Aratus
1.10 425 346–7 456
2.80 284 Archilochus
3.83 346 255 West 220
3.87 284 Ariston of Keos
3.217 200 fr. 13, VI Wehrli 445
3.242 504 fr. 14, I 10
Aeschylus fr. 14, II 10*, 336,
Ag. 60 362 451
440 384 fr. 14, VII 10, 501
896 214 Aristophanes
Ch. 574 278 Ach. 842 514
1012–13 480 1167 483
Eu. 799 418 n. 102 Au. 1281 –3 242
fr. 10 362 Ec. 78 243
199.8–9 451 n. 113 97 210 n. 27*,
Alciphron 393
2.35.1 367 822 518
3.21.1 513 Eq. 634–5 494
Alexis Lys. 64 205
15 496 991 243
179.9 401 n. 93 Nu. 108–9 202, 240
281.1 –3 390 n. 88 1371 347 n. 80
Andocides Pax 182 314
1.38 517 731 443
2.11 437 1183 319
3.21 504 1280–1 390 n. 88
Anecdota Pl. 595–7 371
Oxoniensia Ra. 957 486 n. 119
3.357 316, 317 Th. 494 371
Anthologia Palatina 979–81 189
see Anyte, V. 1188 436
Macedonius 1428 286
Consul, fr. 277 428
Tymnes 281 513
Antiphanes 325 366
162.4 365 581.1 317, 338
201 264 818 388
Antipho S Ach. 842 514
5.53–6 261 S Eq. 84b 433
Anyte S Pl. 279 253, 493
AP 9.314.1 –2 358 Aristophanes of
Apollophanes Byzantium
6 366 fr. 368 Slater 391
Appian Aristopho
BC 2.99 360 5.5 482
558
Aristotle Corpus Gloss. Lat.

EN 1123 b 31 204 2 185.28 Goetz 191
1124 b 12–17 446 Crates Com.
1124 b 30 166 n. 7 10 232
1165 b 16–17 506 Cratinus Iun.
GC 335 a 27 200 1.1 –2 340
HA 513 a 1, 516a 28 312
607 a 303 356 Demetrius
Po. 1461 a 14–25 212 Eloc. 240 319*
Pol.1292 a 13 468 Demosthenes
1314 a 1 499 2.7 323
[Aristotle] 2.20 178
Ath. 12.5 376 4.12 287
33.2 205 4.35 33 n. 105
42.3 248 18.178 414
53.2–3 260 18.258, 266 337 n. 70
54.6 361 18.269 446
56.4 33–35, 466 19.36 309–322
Mir. 841 b 19, 19.229 220
845 b 32 442* 19.287 253
Oec. 1345 a 9 337 21.15 33
Pr. 885 b 35, 886a 1 211 21.17 33 n. 105
VV 1251 b 7–15 302 21.133 479
Athenaeus 21.139 178
52a 317 21.151 471
387e 240 21.158 470
437de 517 22.64 322
23.166 436
Callimachus 23.209 434
Dieg. VIII.35 244 24.170 323
fr. 191.79 375 25.1, 2, 7, 43 499
579 410 27.37 440
657 371 33.22 323
687 375 35.7, 8, 15 323
Chariton 44.4 255
2.1.6 220 n. 32 46.7 323
2.7.7 229 50.6 433
Cicero 51.4 433
de Orat. 3.99 340 52.21 436
Sen. 13, 23 163 54.37 261
[Cicero] 54.39 371
Rhet. Her. 4.63–4 11 –12, 407, 56.1 261
431 56.48 332*
Clement of Alexandria 58.19 414
S Protr. p. 299 [D.] 59.58 323
Stählin 190–191 Ep. 2.17 436
559
Prooem. 54 24, 413, 415, 327.2 220

416 Euripides
55.3 178 Cycl. 167 279
S 2.18 253 212 449
Dinarchus 308 325
1.3 322 El. 558–9 4
1.12, 102 471 813 481
1.106 322 955 379
Dio Cassius Hcld. 995–6 451
71.24.4 276 Hec. 65–6 243
Dio Chrysostom Hel. 1321 250
4.10, 6.19, 31.9, 1534 229 n. 36
77/78.33, 1561 –2 481
79.6 434* Herc. 315 451 n. 113
Diodorus Siculus IT 796 226
1.85.5 200 Or. 698 328
13.28.4–5 267 Ph. 920 178 n. 19
18.56.2, 7 31, 511 1217–18 255
19.23 32 n. 103 fr. 133 400
34/35.1.4 285 360.38 184 n. 20
Diogenes Laertius 912.12–13 361, 368
5.47–8 4, 18, 26 Eustathius
7.62 319 n. 65 Il. 864.3 433
Dionysiades of Mallos 931.22–3 6, 19, 26
TrGF 105 5
Dionysius of FGrH
Halicarnassus Aristocl. 436 F 2 481
Ant. 5.32.4 376 Callix. 627 F 2 244
Heraclid.Cum.
Empedocles 689 F 2 519
B 35.15 212 Memnon 434 F
B 143 351 1(7) 363
Ephippus Paeon 757 F 1 367
15.8–9 390 Philoch. 328 F 6 494
Epicharmus F 89 371
148 317 F 184 367
Epicurus Ptol. Euerg. 234
fr. 163 Usener 205 F2 240
Etymologicum Magnum Theopomp. 115
430.39–41 454 n. 114 F 290 318–319*
437.19–20 (Et. F 344 365, 413
Gen. AB) 342 Timaeus T 18–19,
Eubulides F 156 477
1 517
Eupolis Geoponica
172.5–7 233 10.74 316, 317
560
Harpocration Homer
p. 143 Dindorf 260 Il. 2.204–5 468
p. 183.12 493 6.265 269
Heraclides Ponticus 9.203 212
fr. 165 Wehrli 5 13.278–286 6, 19
Hermippus Com. Od. 3.406–8 357
24.3 230 n. 37 Horace
Hermippus Hist. Ep. 1.7.30 359
fr. 51 Wehrli 15 S. 2.7.116–17 375 n. 86
Herodian Hyperides
2.488 Lentz 261 Ath. 6, 7 322
Herodotus Dem. 34 322
1.119.1 –2 416 Phil. 7 253
3.113.1 340 10 322, 499
3.118.2 192
5.91.2 323 Isaeus
6.67.3 415 3.18 323
7.167.1 512 4.27 436
Hesiod 6.10 417
Op. 232–3 316 6.45 426
797–9 364 9.14 436
Hesychius Isocrates
A 2435 231 12.258 184
A 4752 493 15.129 322
A 8773 366, 367 17.34 261
G 80 415 19.24 248
D 2246 241 Jerome, St.
E 4896 191 Ep. 52.3.5 163
E 5021 429 n. 108* Josephus
E 2574 451 AJ 13.243 285
M 920 469*
M 1591 216 Leges Gortynensium
221, 223 306 9.24, 41 323
T 242, 579, 995, Lucian
996 239–240 DDeor. 12.1 192
W 265 362 Icar. 24 202
Hipparchus Com. Merc.Cond. 23 478
1.3–5 242, 243 Vit.Auct. 11,
Hippocrates 20 360*
Epid. 1.1 487 S Bacch. 1 253
1.2 335 Lycon
3.1 335 fr. 26 Wehrli 9
5.63.4 340 Lycophron
Morb. 2.13 459 TrGF 2.5 467
Mul. 167 496* Lycurgus
Praec. 10 191 100 184 n. 20
561
Lysias fr. 78 Schwabe,

6.38 435 159 Erbse 476
13.9 417 PCG
13.19 491 adesp. 141 359
23.6 441 171 329
frr. 45–9 274 493
Thalheim 272 347 391
599 428
Macedonius Consul 790 428
AP 5.244(245).3 355 820.1 365
Macrobius Petronius
3.8.2–3 367 64.7 21,
Menander 214
Asp. 381 337 74.13 375
Dysc. 26 338 Phanocles
Epit. 901 375 1.23–6 Powell 489
Kith. 40 337 Pherecrates
Phasm. 29–31 110 513
(54–6) 351, 353 184 366
Pk. 375 250 Philetaerus
Sam. 157 353 18 211
233 262 Philo
366 501 De Ios. 258 434
482 322 Philodemus
Sic. 145 447 Rh. 2.150 fr. VIa 453
156 471 Vit. col. IX.
fr. 9 Arnott 30–1 192
(6 Kassel; P. Herc. 222 182
Men. fr. 376 223 fr. 8 251
Koerte) 506 1082 182
fr. 72 4 Philostratus
275.1 436 Gym. 25 279
285 388 Photius
302 391 Bibl. p. 321 b
344 193 Bekker (Henry
407 323 5.164) 190–191
587 456 A 325 dax¦ai 390
844.11 362 A 1765
891 489 ndrok»balo 493
A 3404
Ovid ’Ajr»dito 366
Fast. 5.435 352 G 16 Galxia 415
Met. 14.173 472 E 1670
p©ptaima 388
Pausanias E 2502–3 c±no 260
Grammaticus I 277 ’Ijikrat©de 191 *
562
Phrynichus Lyc. 20.6 335

PS p. 117.8–9 de Lys. 2.6 434*
Borries 514 Marc. 28.3 359
ap. AB 1.62 246 Num. 17.3 360*
Pindar Pomp. 24.13 435
N. 1.50 382 Sol. 27.3 470
4.36 187 Sull. 7.5 359
O. 10.57–8 337 14.5 342
S P. 4.28 267 Them. 5.5 420
Plato 59d 178
Ap. 42a 184 62c 224
Chrm. 160b 333 159f 361
Cra. 415a 269 587f 435
Grg. 481 d 417 n. 101 825e 246
493b 402 839c 246
506c 504 Pollux
517e 360* 4.138–40 469
Hp.Ma. 292e 504 5.90 362*
295b 296 9.48 264
Hp.Mi. 365d 322 10.18 193
Lg. 933d 361 Polybius
950d 436* 1.80.1 267
Phd. 63c 417 4.65.6 323
R. 364e-5a 369–370 5.16.8 322
603e 504 5.27.4 323
Smp. 219c 187 11.25.9 323
223b 276 18.37.1 322 n. 67
Ti. 67e 451 21.14.3 322
[Plato] 22.3.8 267
Def. 413c 321 Porphyrius
415e 223 Abst. 2.16.4 365
416a 291 Posidonius
Plato Comicus fr. 176
211 220 Edelstein-Kidd 11
Plautus
Mil. 8 285 Rhinthon
Poen. 431 –4 341 22 306
Truc. 613 285 Rutilius Lupus
Pliny 2.7 9
Ep. 2.17.12 245
5.6.27 245 Satyrus
Plutarch FHG 3.164 fr. 20 5, 11
Alc. 13.5 252 Semonides
Ant. 33.7 481 7 6
Caes. 11.1 322 Seneca
63.7 185 Ben. 6.9.1 346
563
Con. 7.6.20 180 HP 1.3.2 351 n. 81 *

Sophocles 1.7.2 351 n. 81
Ai. 387 426 2.5.7 316
Ant. 441 449 3.3.5 307
OC 39 453, 471 3.18.5 360*
385–6 418 n. 102 4.4.11 316
1024 348 4.6.1 284
Ph. 256 436 4.7.8 316
Tr. 700 426 8.11.8 450
770 391 Ign. 53 450–451
fr. 314.162–3 323 Lap. 55, 69 216
373.5 286 Lass. 13 204
S OT 549 344 Met. 6a 20 450
Test. A 1.26 Radt 243 Od. 5 316
A 1.90–1 23 n. 70 8, 15–16, 28 234–235*
Stephanus of Sud. 15 450
Byzantium Vent. 29 450
p. 622.12–13 294 fragments
Strabo (Fortenbaugh)
13.2.4 1 n. 2, 188 1.11 –12 8
Suda 1.201, 241 4
A 2182 493 5a.3 1 n. 2
A 4101 476 12 15
E 1841 259 355b 240
E 4012 260 359a.52–4 359
Suetonius 359c 359
Ves. 20 245 436.4a 4
452 266
Teles 486 14 n. 46
pp. 40–1 Hense2 218, 299, 488 178
419 523.7 179
Terence 531.13 179
An. 43–4 446 547 236
Theocritus 563 482
15. 16 276 574 212
S 3.2 239 577 319
S 7.72 239 584a.36, 325 311
Theognis 584a.106 179
263 496 638 476
Theophrastus 650.2 255
CP 1.12.3 351 n. 81 650.31 311
2.18.4 178 686 189
3.11.3 284 Thucydides
3.17.5 360* 2.28 219
5.15.2 360* 3.112.3 458
6.11.2 316 4.37.1 417 n. 101
564
4.40.2 399 8.8.16 424

4.130.7 229 n. 36 HG 2.2.2 417
5.46.3 417 2.2.3 249
8.47.2 499 2.4.6 335
8.81.3 323 3.4.27 418 n. 102
Tibullus 5.1.32 436
1.1.11 –12 358 5.2.8 436
TrGF 5.4.35 417 n. 100
adesp. 416 226 6.5.30 442
Tymnes 6.5.42 417
AP 7.211.3 412 7.1.16 335
Tzetzes 7.1.44 338
Chil. 9.934–5 26 7.3.12 338
7.4.39 417
Xenophon 7.5.15 442
An. 1.5.14 172 Lac. 3.4 436
2.1.4 284 Mem. 2.2.14 384
2.3.15 308 Oec. 9.10 444
4.4.5 442 10.10 319
4.4.13 235 19.12 316
4.8.6 292 Smp. 2.1 254 n. 49
5.5.4 389 2.4 235
6.1.5 249 3.10 279
6.3.16 436 4.4 444
7.2.1 442 4.30 436
7.7.57 416 [Xenophon]
7.8.5 442 Ath. 2.19 499
7.8.6 443 3.8 184
Cyr. 1.1.5 329
1.2.2 509 INSCRIPTIONS
1.3.4 416 IGi3 82.29–30 480
1.6.18 323, IG ii2 47 15, 20 412
417 103.20 298
2.1.23 417 212.13–15 328
2.4.15 417 218.17 298
3.2.2 292 345.11 –12 328
3.3.64 424 n. 105* 351.12–13 328
5.3.12 192 354.15–16 33 n. 105
6.1.17 323 360.11 –12 438
6.1.45 323 478.30 235
7.2.29 329 500.35–6 236
8.1.25 417 661.9, 17 415
8.2.6 424 n. 105* 668.13–15,
8.2.28 249 23 34
8.4.10 504 682.62 422
8.8.9 508 747.7 422
565
768.11 422 IG v.1(1) 938 245

896.34–5 34 1433.33 305
956.6 479 IG ix.2 31 245
974.12 479 IG xi 161 b.51 421
1006.9–10, 199 a.110 245
78–9 480 1227 483
1008.8–9 480 IG xii.5 593
1011.8 480 A.22–3 306
1011.9 480 IG xii Suppl.
1011.13 415 200.19–20 368
1011.53–4 479 IGRom. iv 293a 245
1013.21 513 Inscr.Délos 1412,
1028.10–11, 1417 245
al. 480 IPE i2 32b.49 432
1029.9, SIG3 57.38 311
16–17 480 144 412
1030.9 479 218.15 518
1035.47 432 247 II.10 518
1103.12–13 432 252.7, 15 518
1165.18–22 308 279.41 439
1228.5 520 304.11 –12 438
1236.3 298 345.35–6 236
1329.7–8 484 353.5 414
1514.8–9 244 388.13–15, 23 34
1515.3 244 409.62 422
1532–9 412 495.146 432
1533.23–4 241 687.12 479
1628–9 438 911.18–22 308
1672.13–15, 955.15–16 309
171 443 1042.3, 4 371, 373
1672.28 al. 424 1102.7–8 484
1672.190, 1161 368
230 428 1196.8 483
1678.23 520 1218.22–3 306
2311 b 55 442 AJA 86 (1982)
2701.8 483 229–33 483
3091.7–8 420 BCH 23 (1899)
3095–7 421 565–7 245
3099–3100 421 Hesperia 46 (1977)
3856.2 298 259–67 367
4031 298 Suppl. 1
IG iv2 103.41, 122, (1937) 29 413
126 518 Suppl. 19
109 iii. 128, (1982) 1 –6 260
140 305 MDAI(A) 62
116.15 305 (1937) 7–8 366
566
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
REG 80 (1967) PAPYRI

521 367 P.Cair.Zen. 59009 b 241
SEG 15 (1958) no. 59019 241
104 479, 480 59069 241, 359
18 (1962) no. 59110 242
26 479 59304 247
23 (1968) no. P. Lond. 131.205 433
102 420 P. Ryl. 585.41 489
26 (1976–7) PSI 331 241
no. 72 215, 216 350.4 512
32 (1982) no. 418.7 244
505 304 444 241
III INDEX OF SUBJECTS

abacus 334, 439–440, 450–451 make or decline to make first
accessibility, mark of democrat, approach or greeting 448; see
inaccessibility of autocrat hand
449–450 forms of: ndre ìAqhna±oi 415;
accusative: krtite 224; mmmh 399;
in various relationships with paidrion 511 ; pppa 275;
verbs: retained after passive yuc 490; å with voc. 399,
verb (‘suspensi loculos’) 243, 415, 511 ; terms of endearment
513; mchn nikn 284; ¾d»n (‘cookie’, ‘crumpet’, ‘tart’) 397
etc. with ¡ge±qai 329, with admission ticket or payment 254,
poreÅeqai 354, 426, with 517
diexinai 355; qÅein DionÅia Aeschines see Demosthenes
(internal) as opposed to Aetolian war 28
pin©kia (direct obj.) 415–416; ‘aged sage’ 161 n. 1
gegonÜ th (+ numeral) 478; Agesilaus 271, 273, 429
lampda trcein 480; kejaln Agora: women’s 193–194, 427; area
katag¦nai 483 called kÅklo (-oi) where slaves
in various temporal or spatial sold 193–194; grain sold in
expressions: ¡mran 201 ; bankers’ tables in 235;
(+ numerical adj.) with perfect meat and fish sold in 264;
(‘has been for x days’) 286; t¼ plhqoÅh t¦ gor
mon t¦ ¡mra 313, 469; indicating time of day 315;
tn ¡mran 354, t¼n m¦na vegetables sold in 425; clothes
Âlon 515, t¼n ìAnqethriäna sold in; and Àclo 468; see
m¦na 516; tn tac©thn market
452 Ajax, festival of 479
address, greeting: Akko 231 –232
customary forms omitted from alazon 166, 431 ; as soldier 431, 435
letter 10, 451 ; from a distance Alexander the Great 2, 27–30,
224; failure to respond 344; 272, 282, 435, 454
567
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Alexander IV 30–32 applause 314, 393

Alexis, and parasite 403 apple 190, 316–317
alliteration 238, 374, 411 Apthonius 13 n. 42
Amadutius, J. C. 55 Arbela (Gaugamela), Alexander’s
ambassadors, presents given to victory at 272
510 arbitration 228, 260, 325, 447
ambition (jilotim©a) 405, 419 archery 485
ancestors: superior to descendants archon: and calendar 219; and
201 ; in oratory, praise and procession at Dionysia 33,
abuse of 487, conventional to 465–466
begin speech with 487, 488, to Ariston of Keos 9, 25, 37, 167, 344,
claim that descendants inherit 445
their virtues 491 ; Thracian or Aristophon: (i) orator/politician who
alien as taunt 490 prosecuted Iphicrates in 356/5
animal: identification with (rather 271 –273; (ii) archon 330/29
than comparison with), as 272–273
figure of comic or proverbial Aristotle:
speech 482; in comparisons association with Theophrastus
493 1 –3; character-drawing and
Anthesteria, Anthesterion treatment of virtues and vices
516–517 and their mean 6–8; on
Antipater 2, 27–31, 271, 272, 436 Comedy 14; Ath. (ascribed to
Antiphon, writer on Arist.), date of 34; style of dress
dream-interpretation 368 censured by Plato 419 n. 103; see
Antisthenes 5 Timaeus
antithesis: excessive 258; on groik©a 207–208, dolec©a
reminiscent of Gorgias 325; 199, a«crokrdeia 507,
eÔ . . . kakä 330; mn . . . d lazone©a 7, 166–167, 431 ,
424 naiqh©a 333, naicunt©a
aorist: infinitive, as opposed to 291 , ndre©a 7, 453,
present 174, 196, 224, 232–233, neleuqer©a 301, 419, rkeia
315, 388, 437, 510; subjunctive, 181, 222, 343, aÉqdeia 343,
as opposed to present 314–315; 445, deil©a 453, e«rwne©a
ingressive 174; participle 166–167, 431 , kolake©a 181 ,
coincident with aorist infin. the bnauo and caÓno 7,
267–268 222, 405, the megaloprep
apagoge 256 and mikroprep 419, the
Apatouria 204, 406, 519 megal»yuco 445, 446; on
ape, ape-man 238–240 contempt 445
Aphrodite: birthday on 4th of armpit: infested by lice 388–389;
month 363; and myrtle malodorous, haunt of goats
364 389; excessively hairy 389;
Aphroditos, bisexual god from depilation 389
Cyprus 366–367 arrogance (Ëperhjan©a) 445
Apollo, birthday on 7th of month Artemis, associations connected with
363 304
568
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
article: ball see games

with saleable goods, indicating banks and bankers: coin-testing by
place of sale 191, 315, 441 ; with 215; in Agora 235; in Piraeus
pa±, ‘his slave’ 380; with 434
animals etc., designating genus, Barbary ape 238–239
regular in comparisons 493 barber, barber’s shop 319–320; see
added or omitted: with xno 228, hair, manicure
j©lo 278, dhm»tai etc. 310, bark, of orator, politician 504
Maked»ne 438, n kklh©ai, barley 298; barley grain thrown at
pª dikathr©ou 503; with sacrifice (½la©) 311 ; see groats,
future participle 380; with qÅlhma
name of month 203, 497, of bathing (domestic): in privacy
festival 204; with parts of body 449–450; in cold or hot water
375 496–497
omitted: with participle (‘person(s) baths (public): singing in 218; theft of
who . . .’) 183, 252, 270, 318, clothes from 289; ‘bronze
322, 324, 372, 395, 396, 497; cauldrons’ 298–299;
with prepositional phrase bath-keeper 299; pour one’s
indicating locality 208, 315, own bath water proverbial for
334, 479, 503; with qerm»n and self-help 299; payment for 300;
yucr»n sc. Ìdwr 496 use of oil in 392, 511 ;
single, with two nouns or avoidance of 450; associated
participles 175, 210, 270, 448 with palaestra and gymnasium
neuter: with gen. in periphrasis 485; hot water 497
(t¼ / t t¦ tÅch) 287, 456; bed-bug 428
introducing quoted words 478 belching 315, 391
repeated, in t calk©a t n täi Bernhard, J. S. 55
balane©wi 398 bird: hypocorism for child 190; see
aryballos 241 crow, jackdaw, partridge, pet,
Asclepieum 241, 412–413 pheasant, pigeon
Asclepius 479 birth see pollution
Assembly (Ecclesia) 36, 208, 271, black see Ethiopian (attendant),
332, 414, 422, 447, 473, 497, fingernail, hellebore, soup,
503; members designated o¬ teeth
kaqmenoi 315, 503 Bloch, S. N. J. 17 n. 56
Ast, F. 56 Boedromion 203
Asteas, Asteios, Astias 282 bone: for soup 285, 296; for gods
Athena, and her owl 362–363 423
asyndeton: not of positive and boorishness 208
negative 169; of clauses 386, boring talk see talk
390, 458; of two nouns 460; see borrowing and lending: domestic
tricolon items 217, 298, 310, 383, 492,
Auberius, C. 53 512, 522; money 175, 255, 262,
auctioneer 255 263–265, 292, 302–303,
augment: hÉ- in eÉ-compounds 308–309, 324, 337, 382–383,
184 407, 510; rano-loan 175,
569
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
borrowing and lending (cont.) cat 354

347, 379, 426, 438 n. 110, chamber pot 335
439–440; from a guest 297, character (national) see climate
508; maritime loan 433–434; character (caraktr), meanings of
see defaulting, interest, 4–5
witness character-drawing: Homer,
boundary, boundary-stone 308 Semonides, Herodotus, Plato
boxing, boxing-glove 246 5–6; Homer, Sophocles 22;
brachylogy 228, 303, 352, Aristotle 6–8; later
353, 423, 441, 452, 482, Peripatetics 9–11 ; Roman
509 11 –12
bread 294, 310 Characters see Theophrastus
breadmaker 213 cheese, ‘fresh’ 441
bribery see court chest, for storage 306
broker, go-between 324 children: resemblance to parents
bronze see coin 190, 229; duty of son to look
broth see soup after parents 256; children’s
brothel 492; brothel-keeper 255 language 276, 399; attend
bull, ritual lifting of 480–481 theatre 298, Orphic rites 370;
butcher, butcher’s shop 264, 295 complaint at cost of bringing
buying and selling 175; through up 378–379
agent 303, 324; haggling 307, Choes 352, 353
345, 378; sale of presents choregus 420–422
510–511 chorus, comic 253–254
Byzantium 237 Cimon 307
cistern, for storing rainwater 401
cake: qÅlhma 311 ; p»panon citizenship: qualification for 489;
364–365, as term of granted to foreigners and
endearment 397; offered to slaves 489
Hekate 372 clapping see applause
calendar: discrepancies between Climacus, St. John 26 n. 80
lunar and festival calendars climate: national character
219; terminology used in conditioned by 162–163;
expressing days of month Athenian and Boeotian 162
363–364; ‘sacred’ days clothing and dress:
363–364; dining-club named ¬mtion: how to put on
after day of month on which it (nablleqai) and wear
met 483; see month 210–211, 226, 409, 469; length,
Camotius, J. B. 52 normal 210–211 , too long 210,
Casaubon 53–54; describes too short 210–211, 312; number
Characters as ‘aureolus libellus’ owned and how often changed
14 n. 46; unpublished 233–234, 425; care of, by
conjectures 54 n. 172, 205, 216, fulling 313, by washing and
339, 340 n. 72 mending 383, 425; white for
Cassander 2, 29–32, 283 religious ceremony and public
Castelliunculus, Lapus 52 speeches 414–415
570
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
behaviour associated with contract, stipulating return of money

clothing: clothes tactfully or goods 302
adjusted by the dying 211 ; theft contractor 282
of clothes from baths and cook, cooking 255, 263, 264, 401 ;
gymnasium 289; edge of cloak culinary image, for carnage
turned up to save wear 429; 285, with sexual double entendre
garment turned inside-out to 397; see military imagery
conceal dirty side 429 n. 109; Coray 55
undergarment (citÛn) couch 306
dispensed with 429; cloak court 36, 258–260; spectators in
trailed behind as mark of 331 –332; number of jurors
hauteur 512 379; symbol of democracy
tense of verbs for putting on 471 ; bribery of jurors 471 ;
clothes 196, 210, 392–393; see organised faction in 505;
shoes, dijqra, tr©bwn, see law
citwn©ko, clamÅ crossroads: superstitions associated
coin: with 358; food for Hekate or
rgÅrion 215, calkoÓ 254, remains of household
496, ¡miwblion 263, purifications left at 371 ;
tr©calkon 305, tetradrachma beggars at 372
515 crow 352, 490
forgery and adulteration cucumber 338
215–216; carried in mouth cummin 310
264, 353; ‘one drachma’ as cup: gold and silver 383; jewelled
token of penury or economy 435; spoil of war 436; see
434–435 kulike±on
silver: testing of 215–216; in cushion, pillow 197, 458
exchange for bronze Cyzicus 238
517–518
colloquial expressions: llwi tinª Danaids, as water-carriers 402
lge (‘tell that to the marines’) dancing, not while sober 252, 326,
179; Ìdwr poie±n 202; 348, 486; see k»rdax
parenthetic pä doke±, pä Darvaris, D. N. 17 n. 56, 56
oeqe etc. 286–287 date, date-palm 307
comedy, affinity with Characters dative: local/temporal (muthr©oi,
8–9 tragwido±) 202, 421 ; with
commission, for exchanging money verb of buying (for a person)
518 236, 318;
comparative adjective, intensifying comitative/instrumental (nikn
(‘rather . . .’) 281, 362 mchi, lampdi, tragwido±)
comparison: hyperbolical 275; 284, 289, 421 ; with verb of
animals etc. in comparisons death or destruction (kunar©ou
493; compendiary 495; see fig, teleutanto aÉtäi) 410;
identification agent with perfect passive
compound, force of maintained in 440
simple verb 508 death see funeral, talk
571
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
dedications: garlanded skull of ox umbolän 303, 519, 520; by

408–409; bronze finger deme, phratry, tribe 310, 345,
412–413; ring 412; tain©a 461, 519
420–422; inscribed p©nax place of honour at dinner 194,
420–421 ; tripod 421 ; by 406; preliminary offering
choregus 420–422 before meal 304; dining-clubs
defaulting 308–309, 322, 325 304, 480, 483–484; indelicate
definitions see Theophrastus talk at dinner 397; stroll after
Delia (festival) 516 dinner 446
Delphi 245, 406 see food, tapestry, uite±n
demagogue 473–476 Dionysia (City) 297; procession
deme, demesman: entertainment of 33–35, 253, 465–466; date
309, 461 ; number of 309, 461 ; 201 ; tribal banquet 345
in epitaphs 330–331 ; link with Dionysia (Rural) 204
phratry and tribe 460–462; in Dionysiades of Mallos 5
military context 461 ; disfiguring diseases or disorders: lack
registration in deme before of sympathy towards 387; skin
admission to citizenship 489 disorders (lpra and lj»)
Demetrius of Phaleron 2–3, 29–33, 387; discoloured nails 387;
36, 287, 441, 463 festering sores on shins and
democracy: lesions on toes 388
principles or symbols of: distraint 308, 325
appointment by lot 34, divination, from birds, dreams etc.
collective decision-making 466, 368
plurality of magistrates 467, dog: muzzled 21, 214; guard-dog
courts 471 214; ‘guard-dog of the people’
breeds sycophants 470; 504; Laconian 237–238;
introduced by Theseus 474; Maltese 409–410; gender of
euphemism for licence 498 kÅwn 238; bites neighbour
Demosthenes: in conflict with going to lavatory 335; names
Aeschines 197, 272, 282, 428, 411 –412; symbol of unfettered
489; verbal equivocation over coupling 493; see puppy
Halonnesus 346; voluntary door: answered by slave 214, by
contribution during grain women soliciting for custom
shortage 438 494; battered by excluded lover
Diasia 516 482–483
dicing 241, 256, 507 dowry 378; contribution to expense
Dickens, C. 23, 177 n. 17, 178, of maintaining wife 427; size
264 n. 51 495; returnable if marriage
Diels, H. 56 childless 495
diminutives 261 –262, 377, 408, drachma see coin
412 dream: conventionally ‘seen’ 200;
dining: interpretation of and measures
after sacrifice, with friends and taken in response to 368
relations 293, 325, after drill-sergeant (¾plomco)
wedding 423; de±pnon p¼ 247–248, 479
572
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Duport, J. 54 Ethiopian: monkey 239, attendant

Dürer, A. 52 406–407
euphemism: for (going to) lavatory
Ecclesia see Assembly 335; freedom of speech,
Edmonds, J. M. 57 democracy, and liberty as
election, by show of hands 33, euphemisms for licence and
447 crime 498; leÅqero 501 ,
Eleusis 202, 342 eÉju, jiltairo, pidxio
ellipse: 502–503
of gor 427, dracm 440, qÅra Euripides, blamed for promoting
(with aÉle©a) 382, ¾d» 426, lali 266
o²no 328, 496, pot mn 298, Eustathius 6, 19, 26, 181
Ìdwr (with qerm»n, yucr»n) evil eye 371
496, ce±ra (with parae©ein) exchange of money 517–518
204 export duty 27–28, 437
of e²nai 402, ti (with rgon) eyebrows, raised or lowered
205, 457, ti, e«i 494, §n, 279
§an 398–399, 416, ßn 458
of verb: in question, p»qen Å; facial expression 279
279, kaª pä 379; introducing farmer, farming 202
direct speech 280–281 ; in favour, conferred should be
conditional clause 356; in forgotten, received
temporal clause 508 remembered 295, 446–447,
of apodosis before e« d m 296; of 471
‘house’ (with e« and k) 393, feast see dining
‘school’ (e« didaklou) 425; ferret 354–355
of ‘other’ 441 festivals: reorganisation of 33;
ephebes 235–236; gymnastic frequency of 203 n. 25, 219,
training 235–236; instruction 516; defaulting debtor immune
by drill-sergeants 248; from distraint during 325;
torch-races 479–480; ritual expenditure on 345; see
lifting of bull 480–481 ; training Anthesteria, Delia, Diasia,
in archery and javelin-throwing Dionysia, Galaxia, Hephaestia,
484 Hermes, hero-festivals, Muses,
epidosis 327–328, 422–423, 438 Mysteries, Panathenaea,
epilepsy: regarded as pollution 374; Promethia, Skira
spitting at epileptics 375 fever 205, 322
epilogues see Theophrastus fig 316; measure of likeness (‘as like
epimeletae, of processions, theatre, etc. as two figs’) 228; cheap food for
33–35, 465–466 poor 307
epiphany of divinity, provokes frisson fillet, for sacrificial animal 311
375 fingernail: black or discoloured 387;
epitaph: for woman 330–331 , for large or long 387; trimming of
pet 410 469
eranos: see borrowing fire, in testing metal 384
Erian Gate 341 –342 Fischer, J. F. 55
573
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
fish: trico 218; as Àyon 295; garlic: qÅmon 209; medicinal and
main©, tr©glh, trigl© offered apotropaic 371 –372
to Hekate 373 Gaugamela see Arbela
fishmonger, fish-shop 218, 264 gazelle see horn
fly (insect) 459 genealogy 487
font 353 genitive:
food: in figurative expression 281 ; in various expressions:
presents of 293, 345, 377, Bohdromiäno (mhn») 203,
423; baby’s, chewed first by t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ 220, t¦
nurse 396; in sexual double ¡mra 264, 496, toÓ
entendre 397; cost of 496; niautoÓ 311 , qÅlako
see bone, grain, soup, lj©twn 359, mn rgur©ou
vegetables 407, crw trikonta mnän
Foss, H. E. 56 515
[Fraenkel, E.] 16 partitive: with o¬ toioÓtoi 205,
frankincense 364–365 468, with oÕtoi 235, 254, with
friends: relationship of reciprocal place names (t¦ ìItal©h
benefit between 402; common Tranta) 235; in tän
antithesis ‘help friends, harm troggÅlwn lkuqoi 242,
enemies’ 402 243, 308, in m»no tän llwn
fruit: designated as kr»drua and 393
½pÛra 316–317; for dessert with verbs: e²nai ‘belong to’ 472;
(tragmata / trÛgalia) 316, verb of eating 282, 372;
317 kejal¦ with katag¦nai 483
fuller, fulling 313, 415; fuller’s earth with me©zwn, lttwn ‘too
313 large/small for’ 209, 312; with
funeral and pr»qei 337, 363 lcito 304, 510; with
Furlanus, D. 53 ¡m©ei, ¡m©ea 519
future: participle, with n©taqai of sum for which surety is stood
324; indicative, equivalent 322; of item paid for 521
to deliberative subjunctive see participle
465 Gesner, C. 42 n. 143, 52
Gesner, J. M. 52 n. 161
Galaxia 23–24, 415 goat see armpit
Gale, T. 54 gods and goddesses, symmetrically
games: unidentified 229–232, 484; paired 369
knucklebones 241 ; ‘paper, Goez, J. A. 55
scissors, stone’ 230; ball games Gorgias 325
246 grain: sale, price, supply 201 ;
garland, wreath: of myrtle 364–365, shortages 27–28, 438
of garlic 371 –372, of onions grapes 316–317
371 ; for statue 365–367, for gratitude, ingratitude 471 –472; see
dedicated skull of ox 408–409, favour
for cult object 413; worn for grave: as source of pollution 363; for
religious ceremony and public pet 410; see epitaph
speech 414 greed see shamelessness
574
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
greeting see address Herodas 8, 26 n. 77

groats (ljita) 359 Herodotus, and the abacus and
gum see mastic shrub numerical calculations 440
gymnasium: public and private hetaira, brawling over 482
235–236, 245; for ephebes at hetaireia (mutual-aid society) 468
Piraeus 235; loiterers in 236; Hippias, sophist 161 n. 5
used for public displays 247; hire, rent: of workman, slave or free
theft of clothes from 289; 210; of girl piper 403; of
boxing in 246 servant who provides own food
424; of delivery-boy 425; of
haggling see buying and selling maid 427; of house or property
hair: long 233, short 312; haircut 444; unspecified 448; see slave
220, 232–233, 312, 406, 469; in hissing 314
armpit 389; dedication of 406; Homer: and character-drawing
see barber 5, 19, 23 n. 70; ignorance of
hand: shaken or clasped 226; kept 467
inside ¬mtion 226; homoeoteleuton 325
two-handed embrace 226; honey: Hymettian 238, Attic 238
washed before prayer, libation, horn: of gazelle 241 ; byword for
sacrifice 352; washed before hardness 428
and after dinner 391 horse: use and cost of 442–443;
Hanow, F. 17 n. 56 ownership as mark of wealth
Haupt, M. 16 443; horsemanship 483
head, bent low, attitudes indicated housework, in early morning 428
by 448–449 hyperbaton see word order
Hekate: conjured by magic to attack identification: riddling, followed by
house 361 –362; food left at explanation 401, 503; rather
crossroads for 371 –373; items than comparison, characteristic
offered to 372–373 of comedy and popular speech
hellebore, black as laxative, white as 482
emetic 397–398
helmsman 424, 455 illiberality 419
Hephaestia 479 Immisch, O. 57
Heracles: shrine of 480; wrestles imperfect see participle, present,
with lion and bull 481 qÅein
Heracles, son of Alexander the impersonal verb, in ½y g©gneto /
Great 30, 32 §n 174
Heraclides Ponticus 5 importation of goods from enemy
Herm 358 state 28, 437
Hermaphroditos 365–368 inaccessibility see accessibility
Hermes: birthday on 4th of month indoors: staying indoors invites
363; festival of 425 censure 425
Hermippus 15 infinitive: negative with 262; for
Hermogenes 13 n. 42, 42 n. 143 imperative 276; after pr¼ toÓ
hero see snake 279; final-consecutive 248,
hero-festival 479–480 360, 409, 480; in indirect
575
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
infinitive (cont.) Knights (¬ppe±): equipment,

statement with anomalous Âti numbers, processions, cloak
or Þ 417–418; see aorist, 409
present knucklebones 241, 425
ingratitude see gratitude Kobaloi 493–494
initiation see mystery cults, kolax 181 –182
Sabazios
inn, innkeeper 255, 402 Laconian dog 237–238
interest: daily rate 263, 302; Lamian war 27–28
monthly rate 302; monthly lamp 382; lamp-wick 310; lamp oil
calculation 302; monthly or 521
annual collection 302; late see learning
untimely demand 325; laughter, sycophantic 189
compound 303, 309; see laurel, for purification or protection
borrowing and lending 353
Iphicrates: inventor of military lavatory 335–336, 396; see chamber
footwear 190–191, of long pot, euphemism
sword 458; prosecuted by law, lawsuit: public and private cases
Aristophon 271 –272 500; see arbitration, court,
Iphicratids 190–191 defaulting, oath, speech-writer,
irony: types of 166; Socratic 166; surety, witness, written
crht» and other çmata evidence, d©kh, ggÅh, c±no
mj©bola 501 lead, in production of silver and in
itching 390 coin-alloys 216
learning: late 477, never too late 477
jackdaw 407 lekythos, ‘squat’, from Thurii
jar: for legal documents 260; 241 –242
leaking, proverbial 402 lending see borrowing
javelin-throwing 484 lentil, lentil soup 339, 521
Jebb, R. C. 56; confuses Athens with Leotychidas 271
Victorian Cambridge 318, lily 490
370 n. 84 liturgies: abolition of 33, 35, 441 ;
Jerome, St. 14 n. 46, 163 entertainment of deme and
jewel see stone tribe 309–310, 345; choregia
jurors 315; number of 379; bribery 420–422; trierarchy 424,
of 471 ; designated o¬ kaqmenoi 440–441 ; boasting of 440–441,
503 473; cost of 441 ; complaint of
473
Kabeiroi 455 Livineius 48 n. 156
Kimolos, Kimolian earth 313 lot, appointment by: not favoured by
kissing: of children 190, 228; of oligarchs 34; of public officials
sacred objects, earth 358; of 447
hand in reverential gesture 358; loud talk see talk
verbs for 377 louse 388–389
kneeling, in prayer or worship lover: elderly as object of mockery
358 22, 482; exclusus amator 22, 482
576
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
LSJ, corrected: gwg 487, Lysias, reputed author of speech by

kr»druon 316, le©jw 413, Iphicrates 272
nadcomai 453, ndr»lalo
493, n©thmi 335, pal» Macedonia 29–32, 35, 437–438;
401 n. 94, pokmptw 426, and Aristotle and
polaÅw 435, p»noia 250, Theophrastus 2; timber from
porrptw 360, pojor 27–29, 437
517, rmonik» 248, aÉl©dion madness, regarded as pollution 374;
19, 244, aÉcmw 473, j©hmi madmen pelted with stones
509, diabllw 355, 375; madmen throw stones
dizeugma 433, dia©rw 205, 375 n. 86
di»ti 444, mjobo 322, magic 352, 355, 361
nte©nw 328, nteuxi 223, magistrates: exceptionally
pagwg 361 , pn 189, empowered to act without
pibllw 267, reference to other authority
pikatallag 518, 466; ten as regular number
p©ptaima 388, pihma©nw for board 467; plurality as
188, p©talma 237, ¡n©ka principle of democracy
508, qaumzw 377, qÅmon 209, 467; scrutiny of 469; see
katabllw 278, Prytaneis
kttui 428 n. 107, Malta, Maltese dog 409–410
krtito 224, kunoÅcion manicure, at barber’s 469
382, malak» 195, manuscripts, papyri, and textual
memy©moiro 376, mer© 377, criticism:
me»kouro 469, nikw 379, anomalies justify suspicion 18,
okade 416, o«nrion 377, 20
palaitria±o 20, 244, errors:
paratroj 429, perierg©a abbreviation 386, 390, 476
327, peri©thmi 331 , periorw additions, in A or B 184
457, p©qo 402, plrwma 481 , anagrammatism 352, 475
plhizw 468, poiw 440, anticipation, of letters in
pr»ptaima 388, pur»w following word 219, 220,
384, ugkroÅw 326, 312, 414, 422, 444, 458,
umbllw 480, ja±ra 246, 483
tain©dion 421 , Ìpno 276, assimilation: of ending to that
Ëpolambnw 267, calke±on of following word 243, 286,
299, Ýnhtiw 443; proposes 310, 503, to that of preceding
excellent emendation 306 word 243, 372; of letters to
Lucian, alleged imitation of those of preceding word 244,
Characters 26, 202, 268 n. 52, 338, 389, 402, 444, 493,
478 521
Lyceum 2–3, 9 compound for simple verb
Lycius, L. 53 40 n. 136, 426, 483, 521
Lycon: (i) Peripatetic 9, 11, 12; confusion of letters: l/r 264,
(ii) other 282 416; h/i 312, 341, 342, 379,
Lysander 271, 273 429, 443; ei/i 328, 381, 393;
577
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
manuscripts (cont.) omission:

k/c 381 ; o/w 383, 465; q/t in A or B 183
475, 508; of compendia for of n 263, 355, 383, d 183,
-w and ka© 465 ti 169; of negative 521
confusion of words: p» / p© lipography 391; saut du même
248, 352, 360, 372; p» / au même 249, 265, 399
Ëp» 220, 514; dekzein / dik- optative for indicative or
471 ; e«in / §an 218; p© / subjunctive 383
Ëp» 214, 272; ¢ / ka© 521 ; papyri 18, 25, 37–38, 50, 223,
kale±n / labe±n 338; lab- / 462, 463–468; conjectures
laq- / lal- 170 n. 12; lab- / confirmed by papyri 19–20,
lac- 460; mga / mla 56–57, 243; syllable-division in
387; mtwpon / pr»wpon papyri 229, 235
279; nom©zein / Àzein 340; parablepsy 175, 352
o³ / oÕ 329; paidrion / prepositional prefix displaced
paid©on 427; pnta / 474
taÓta 286; par / per© prompted by familiarity with
220, 332, 355; per© / pr» Homeric or poetic forms
288; poi / pou 318; pro- / 311
pro- 164, 192, 288, 319; rewriting 277, 282, 386
kulo- / kuto- 360 transmission 37–50; text
dittography 305, 374, corrupted before time of
436 Philodemus 37, 231; later mss.,
interpolation 17–18, 247 alleged independence of 39–40;
of mlei 193, ti 169, 457, conjectures by scribes 39–40;
ka© 270, 334, 339, 469, abridgement 40, 41; A and B, in
511, ãte 211, 389, 400 disagreement 41 n. 138, first use
of article 215, 380, 497, of 54; individual mss. 43–49;
generalising adjectives 251, Munich epitome (M) 42–43,
389, indicative 257, 270, 49; scholia 43 n. 146, 44, 239,
282, 283, 288, 296, 253, 295; stemma 50–52; V,
explanatory gloss 270, discovery of 55; ‘additamenta
383, 400–401, 416, 425, Vaticana’ 55; author’s variants,
abstract phraseology 283, alleged 172, 256
preposition 440, 442, 447 transposition 187, 203,
of words added or repeated 217–218
to clarify construction after variation in word order
interpolation which between A and B 187, 192,
interrupts it 251, 258, 255, 292, 294, 510
270, 283 marjoram 310
of word to provide a market: on first of month 219; at
construction after Piraeus 432–433; at Rhodes,
corruption 244 Olbia (Sarmatian) 432; stalls
through failure to 443; see Agora
understand construction marten 354–355
284 mask 253–254
578
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
mastic shrub, its gum used to whiten Mysteries: Eleusinian 202, 203;
teeth 233 Lesser (at Agrai) 516
measure, measuring: of rations 213; mystery cults: Orphic 369–370;
Pheidonian measure 512–513; Kabeiroi on Samothrace 455
measuring vessel 512–513
medicine and medical language: nail, for shoe 218; see fingernail
malak©zeqai 174, eÉtrep©zein name: geographical, indicates shape
330, pot©zein 330, qhrioÓqai or type of vessel 242; of slave
388, nw kaª ktw kaqa©rein 488, 491 , (ethnic) 294–295,
398; medicinal use of wine 364; 490; of dog 411 –412; of
see squill Athenian woman 412; changed
Megalopolis, scene of Spartan defeat by upstart, slave, soldier
by Antipater 272 488–489; adaptation to
Melite: (i) Malta 410; (ii) island off circumstance as comic motif
Epirus 410; (iii) Attic deme 411 488
Menander, and Theophrastus 8 Navarre, O. 57
mercenary 488 Needham, P. 54
metic 201, 330, 335, 411, 439–505 negative:
middle, with no distinction from m rather than oÉ with infin.
active 392 dependent on o³o or dein»
military imagery 263, 264, 270, 169, 262
271 m in relative clauses 329
mime, affinity with Characters oÉ rather than m after verb of
9 n. 26 speech 176
money see coin, slave oÉ and m with participles 434,
monkey 239 436
month: name of, with or without see positive
article, with or without mn neuter, predicate in gnomic
203; first day a holiday statement 468
218–219; number of days in news, fabricated 277
months 219; see calendar, nominative, of exclamation 287
interest, teacher nose-wiping 390
moon, new 218–219 noun, unqualified (tratiÛth ‘a
moral terminology, to denote class soldier’) 282
and/or political alignment numeration, acrophonic and
499 alphabetic 440
Morel, F. 53 nurse 370, 396
Mormo 232 nut 316–317
Mother goddess 415
mouse 354; as portent 359; oath 252, 259, 331 –332, 447
nickname qulakotrÛx 359 Odeion of Pericles 203, 470
Muses, festival of 425 oil: for anointing person 234–235,
musical theorist (rmonik») 248 473, stone 357, statue 357, cult
myrtle: garland 364–365; associated object 413; for lamp 521 ; in
with Aphrodite 364 baths 392, 511 ; rancid 392,
myrtleberries 315 511 ; see perfume
579
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
oligarchs: and Macedonia 35; at partridge 240–241

Athens 463; hostile to Pasquali, G. 15–16, 57
appointment by lot 34, to Pauw, J. C. de 54
sycophants 470, to courts 471 , pear 190, 316–317
to liturgies 473, to synoecism peltast, Thracian 488
475; comic 35, 463; avaricious Perdiccas 28
465, 473 perfect: sign of late composition 161,
olive 307, 316 288; indistinguishable from
Olynthus 335 aorist in post-classical Greek
omen: crow 352; gal¦ 354–355; 289; periphrastic 282; with
snake 355–357; mouse 359; ¡mran + numerical adj. (‘has
owl 362; encounter on leaving been for x days’) 286; mem©hka,
home or on road 354; item nen»mika et sim. 495; see
dropped during religious rite 393 ¡tt¦qai
onomatopoeia 362, 396 perfume, perfume-shop 208–209,
optative: potential in indirect 234–235, 319–320
question 345; in indirect speech Pericles: supposed addressee of
after present leading verb 398; prooemium 161 n. 5; Odeion of
introduced by corruption 383 203; blamed for promoting
Orpheus, priests of 369–370 lali 266
ostracism 476 periphrasis: see article (neuter),
owl, Athena’s 362 perfect
ox, sacrificial: cost of 408; Persian: textiles 244; jewelled cups
dedication of garlanded skull 435
408–409 pet: ape, monkey 239; Sicilian
pigeon 241 ; jackdaw 407; cage
palaestra: usually private 245; used for pet bird 407; bird equipped
for public displays 247 to resemble soldier 408;
Panathenaea 345, 479 Maltese dog 409–410; grave
papyri see manuscripts and epitaph for 410
parasite 181, 194, 403 Petersen, E. 56
parenthesis: 286–287 (pä doke±, Petroni, Prospero 55
pä oeqe), 293 Petronius, alleged imitation of
parents see children Characters 26, 214
participle: series of participles 224; pheasant 240–241
second amplifies first 254, 324, Pheidon see measure
325, 500; present, setting scene Philip III Arrhidaeus 29–31
274; ka© correctly or incorrectly Philodemus 9–10, 17, 25, 37,
linking participles 299, 378, 50, 167, 182, 231, 249,
380, 458, 469, 511 ; gen. 251
absolute, with indefinite subject Phocion 2, 27, 29–33, 36, 450, 463,
unexpressed 336–337, 393, 501
426, 520, 522; see aorist, article, phratry 406; link with deme and
future, negative, present, ma, tribe 460–462; in military
rti, eÉqÅ context 461 ; numbers 461 ;
580
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
entertainment of 461, 518–519; prayer: inquiry which god to pray to

see Apatouria 368–369; kneeling in prayer
Pico della Mirandola, G. F. 52 358
pigeon, Sicilian 241 pregnant construction 236, 264
pigsty 392 preposition: prepositional phrase
pillar, on mortgaged property 308 dependent on noun 264, 296,
pillow see cushion 353, 510, 521 ; with first item
pipe (titÅrino aÉl») 240 only of a series 290, 450
piper, on campaign 282; girl piper present:
318–319, 393, 403 infinitive: reflects conative present
Piraeus: market 432–433; cäma or imperfect indic. 216; not
433; banks 434 coincident with aorist participle
pirate ship see ¡miol©a 267–268, 274, 280
Pirckheimer, W. 52 participle: reflects imperfect
pitch (resin) 340–341 indicative 213, 335, 337, 392;
Planudes 42 n. 143 sets scene 274; of verb
Plato: and character-drawing 6; expressing motion, conveyance,
Definitions ascribed to 17 perception 392
pleonasm: plh©on para- 200; indicates continued effect of
Ìteron pi- 249; e«elqe±n ew action performed or begun in
365; met . . . un- 414, 484, past 286, 292; dramatic
520; präton rcein / (peti ‘is gone’) 379; with
rceqai 488 verb of giving birth 496
Pliny, and sphaeristeria 245 see aorist
Plutarch, alleged acquaintance with priest, Orphic 369–370
Characters 26 n. 77, 185 priestess, performs purificatory rites
pocket 260; lack of 264, 353 373–374
polecat 354–355 prison 257
Politian 52 Promethia 479
pollution: official adviser on 359; pronoun:
associated with birth and demonstrative (oÕto), resumptive
death 363, with tomb 363, use 170, 200, 254, 334, 336,
with madness and epilepsy 403, 410, 413, 444, 478; kaª
374; averted by spitting oÕto ‘and moreover’ 425
374–375 personal, emphatic or
Polycles 161 n. 5, 163 non-emphatic, with aÉt» 288
Polyperchon 2, 32, 283 reflexive (aËt» and aut»),
polyptoton 462 where appropriate 172
Porson, R. 16 relative: singular (Âti or Á n)
portraiture, naturalistic 197 after pnte 198; with noun in
Posideon 204, 497 agreement, introducing indirect
Posidonius 11 question 202; antecedent
positive notion mentally supplied in omitted 227, 315, 383; see
second clause after negative in negative
first 255 prostration, in worship 358
581
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
proverbial expressions: ¾rän m Ëpome±nai 347; podidoÆ . . .

¾rn, koÅwn m koÅein 176; podoÓnai 212, 407, 511, 515;
jultteqai mllon £ toÆ qeoª kaª qea© et sim. 369
cei 180; eª gewrg¼ e« of n 522
nwta ploÅio 202; word or phrase at end of sentence
¾moi»tero Åkou 228; k¼ echoes word or phrase near
kaª qÅlako 230; käi beginning 408
mormolÅtteqai 232; careless 16, 424, 458, 476
trug»no lal©tero 275; resemblance to father, indication of
autäi balaneÅein 299; ¾doÓ legitimacy 229
paroÅh tn trap¼n m rhetorical devices: conquestio
ztei 329; gal¦n cei 354; (cetliam») 287; speaker
tetrhmno p©qo 402; panq ì or writer represented as
Âmoia 501 ; t¼ Âmoion pr¼ t¼ doing what he is describing
Âmoion 505–506; koin¼ ëErm¦ 289; see antithesis,
512 homoeoteleuton
Prytaneis 413; decrees honouring riddle 230, 401, 503
405, 413, 415, 416 rumour-monger 277
puppy: sacrificed to Hekate 373; rusticity 207–208
blood in purificatory rite
374 Sabazios 322, 356, 481
purification: by ritual washing Sacred Gate 342
351 –353; with laurel 353; sacrifice, sacrificial ritual: before
official adviser on 359; of house battle 282; followed by feast
361, 371 ; with water outside 293; items used in (½la©,
house of dead 363; by priests of tmmata, qulmata)
Orpheus 369; in sea 370; by 310–311 ; horns of sacrificial
professional women 373; animal garlanded 311 ; expense
with squill and blood of puppy of 325, 408; in atonement,
374 expiation 360; wine,
purse 378 myrtle-garlands, frankincense,
Pyanopsion 204 cakes 364–365; puppy for
Hekate 373; ox 408; before
radish 519 wedding 423; portions reserved
rain: comes from Zeus 202, for gods and priests 423; at
339–340, 378; makes earth shrine of Heracles 289, 480;
fragrant 340; stored in cistern bull lifted over altar 480–481 ;
or well 401 see garland, ox
ram, battering-ram 22, 482–483 salt 293, 310, 339, 521
recitation at symposium 347, 478 Samothrace 455
Reiske, J. J. 55 satyr-ape 239
relative see pronoun Satyrus 5, 11
rent see hire Schneider, J. G. 55
repetition: scholia see manuscripts
of same stem: polambnwn . . . school 270, school-fee 515, 517
paralabe±n 338; name±nai . . . Schwartz, J. C. 55
582
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
scratching 390 slander 487

scytale 242–243 slave: inappropriate familiarity
sea see purification, ships with 210, 399; hired as
sealing of doors, receptacles 381 workman 210; answers door
selling see buying 214; as coin-tester 215;
Semonides 6 Plautine, pictures himself as
sexual imagery 213, 397, 404, general 263; accompanies
492 master on campaign 282, out
shamelessness, associated with of doors 294; given food from
greed 291 table 293–294, 519; does
Sheppard, J. G. 56 shopping 295, 338, 380;
ships and seamanship: return of attends theatre 298; whipped
sailing weather 201 ; kteion 325; epitaph for 330; carries
205; trireme 424; money 381, 407, 444;
Macedonian timber for Ethiopian 406–407; female
shipbuilding 437; ¡miol©a (maid) 427; sweeps 428;
454–455; prayer to Kabeiroi granted citizenship 489;
during storm 455; danger of delinquent or runaway, tattooed
sailing with the irreligious 455; 491 ; ways of addressing 511 ;
see borrowing and lending hired out 517, 520; pays master
(maritime loan), helmsman, part of earnings when working
trierarch for himself 517; see name
shoes: Iphicratids 190–191 ; krhp© slowness, in learning or perception
191 –192, 218; ½piqokrhp© 333
191 ; oversized 209; nailed 185, smell: of earth after rain 340, pitch
218; style favoured by 340–341, armpit 389, rancid
Theophrastus 218, 419; not oil 392, pigsty 392
worn indoors 313; shoelessness snake: appearance in house taken
312–313, 382; terms for repair as omen 355–357; associated
427–428 with hero 357; pare©a in
shop 265; as place of talk 320 see cult of Sabazios 356; ¬er»
barber, butcher, fishmonger, 356–357
perfume, trpeza Solon, laws of: sons to look after
shopping: not normally by women elderly parents 256; adults not
194, 295; by men 295, 318, to enter schools 270;
425; by slaves 295, 338, 380; prohibition on speaking ill of
delivered by hired carrier the dead 498
(j»rtax, proÅneiko) 425 sophists: public displays 247;
shrine, domestic 357 blamed for promoting lali
Siebenkees, J. P. 55 266
silver see coin, cup Sophocles: and character-drawing
Simonides, reproached for selling 22; ‘inventor’ of curved
food he had been given 511 walking-stick 243
singing: in baths 218; at symposium Sosias, Sosistratos, Sosidemos 488
347 soup, broth (zwm») 285, 296;
Skira, festival 371 ‘black’ 398; see lentil
583
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Spartans: wear same cloak in 320; alpikt / -it 459;

summer and winter 233, 425; meron / tm- 203, 220; -- /
cut hair short 312; drink black -tt- 341 ; -tornnuqai /
broth 398; wear tr©bwn 429; -t»rnuqai / -trÛnnuqai
avaricious 465; practise 424; -tath / -toÅth 478;
opposite of synoecism 475; T©beio / T©bio 295; u¬», Ë»,
Athenian imitation of 210, u¬e±, Ëe± 298; FeidÛneio /
233, 242, 312, 497; see dog, -nio 513; jrthr / -twr
scytale 461, 518; -ju / -ju¦ 503;
speech-writer 379 calke±on / -k©on 299; cro /
spelling: dax- / ½dax- 390–391 ; crw 515; cr±()ma 234–235
cqeqomai / cqomai sphaeristerium 245–246
504; cri / -i 389; g©(g)neqai spitting: to avert pollution 374; at
184; gi(g)nÛkw 200; gnajeÅ epileptics 375; into the bosom
/ knajeÅ 313; grammat(e)©dion 375; by Persians not in public
261 –262; due±n / duo±n 186; 390; involuntary 391 ; across
qlein / qlein 448; -ei / -hi table 394
(2nd person sing.) 183; e¯neka / spurs 409
neka 292; la / la©a 307; squill 374
oraknai / wr- 177; statue: anointed with oil 357;
k»raka 459; eÉ- / hÉ- honoured with cake,
(augment and reduplication) frankincense etc. 365;
184, 378, 379; ¡m©ea / -©h garlanded 365–367; of
519–520; ¡miwblion / -b»lion Hermaphroditos 365–368;
263; qulhma / quhl- / qul- ‘play statues’ 484
311 ; ¬ereÛunon / ¬ereiÛ- / Stein, M. 17, 57
¬erÛ- 423; kaqrai / -¦rai Steinmetz, P. 57
361 ; kakkab©zein / kikkabzein Stephanus, H. 53
362; K()andro 283–284; Stoa (Basileios, Eleutherios, Poikile)
kekroum- / kekroum- 513; 184–185
kle±de(-a) / kle± 312; Stobaeus, educative purpose of 161
kreopÛlh / krew- 295; stone: thrown in magic and ritual
leitourg©a / lhit- 441 ; 355; anointed with oil 357;
loÅeqai / loÓqai 450, 497; worshipped 357–358; thrown
mhde© / -qe© 183; murr©nh / at madman 375; thrown by
mur©nh 364; nutxai / -ai madman 375 n. 86; precious
274; xenodok©a / -doc©a 444; (jewel) 435
oÉde© / -qe© 183; pp(p)a superstition 349–351
276; peri(i)Ûn 220; pl»imo / surety, act for another as 323,
plÛ- 201 ; podap» / 384
potap» 331 ; Polu()prcwn swallow, traditionally talkative
283; PoeideÛn / Poid- 204, 275
497; PuaneyiÛn / -oyiÛn 204; sweat 389
-pwle±on / -pÛlion (rto-, sweeping, a servile activity 428; see
«cquo-, muro-, tarico-) 264, kallÅnein, klluma
584
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
sycophant 437, 470–471 ; see 1 n. 2, 19; writings listed by

laughter D.L. 4, 18–19; as lecturer 15;
Sylburg, F. 53 on comedy 13; on marriage
synoecism 474–475 14 n. 46; on tÅch 287; on
barbers’ shops 319; on
tablet of wood, inscribed jilotim©a 405
420–422 Characters: title 5; antecedents and
tact, tactlessness 321 relations 5–9; lacks ethical
talk, talkativeness 199, 266; talk dimension 12; definitions 12,
sitting idly 185; death from 17, 37; epilogues 12, 17, 38, 161,
boring talk 205; too loud 209; 179–180, 204–206, 265,
talkative know-alls 267; to talk 288–290, 312–313, 505–506;
while walking censured 447; prooemium 12, 16–17, 38, 53, 165;
reluctance to talk to passers-by purpose 12–16, 37; not extracts
448; see dinner, shop from another work of T. 12–13;
tapestry: embroidered oriental 244; subjects lack motive 12, 167,
hung in dining-room 244 181 ; order 15; authenticity 16;
tattooing: of Thracians 489–491, of style 19–25; date 27–37;
slaves 491 interpolations 17–18;
tax-collector 255 incompleteness 18–19; literary
teacher, paid monthly 515 influence 25–27; transmission
teeth: whitened with gum 233; 37–50; some texts and
Roman toothpowders 233; commentaries 52–57; XXXI
black and decaying 389 (Fil»logo) 56 n. 189
tense see aorist, future, imperfect, Theseus: introduction of democracy
perfect, present 474; synoecism of Attica 474;
theatre: cushions in 197; front seats ends local authorities but not
allotted ex officio 236; attended kingship 475; first victim of
by foreigners 297, by children demagogues or ostracism
and slaves 298; payment for 475–476; death 475; festival of
seat 297; applause and hissing 479
314; spectators designated o¬ Thracian: peltast 488; high
kaqmenoi 315; falling asleep in birth signalled by tattoo
334; free admission 508–509; 489–491 ; parentage as taunt
lessee/manager 509; school 489–490
outing to 517 three, in magic and ritual 351 –352,
thematic forms (-Åw for -umi) 247, 355, 375
319 Thurii 241 –242
Themistocles: choregic dedication thyme 209
420; accused of selling food he Tibeios 294–295
had been given 511 ; taunted Timaeus, abuse of Aristotle 477
with Thracian mother 490 tomb see grave
Theophrastus torch: votive offering at Eleusis 202;
life 1 –3, 16, 161, 163, 218, 313, torch-races 479–480
419; style praised in antiquity Tractatus Coislinianus 13
585
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
travel allowance 510 white: see clothing, hellebore, lily,

trespass 307 teeth
tribe (jul), entertainment of Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von
309–310, 461 ; link with deme 57
and phratry 460–462; in wine: drunk with water 212, 328;
military context 461 and pitch (resin) 340; boiled
tricolon 247, 255, 256, 264, 364, and sweetened (©raion) 364;
368, 413, 457, 460 antiseptic properties 459;
trierarch, trierarchy 424, 440–441 watered by retailer 508
tripod, prize not for tragic but witch 371
for dithyrambic choregus witness: in court 259, 323, 332; to
421 loan 337–338, 382–383
trumpet 459 women: feign illness to put off lover
322; attend weddings 324;
Valckenaer, L. K. 16 epitaphs for 330–331 ; sleep in
vampire 371 separate bedroom 381 ;
variation: reflexive and non-reflexive excursions by 427; sexually
pronoun 172; Âti / Þ + indic. rapacious (prostitutes) 492;
and acc. + infin. 201, 402, 501 ; answer own door 494; see
Âti and Þ 202; direct and Agora, breadmaker, shopping,
reported speech 274, 473; t©ni gunaike±on gno,
qeän £ qei 369; singular and leÅqero
plural participles 396 word order:
vegetables 401 rto kaª kra not vice versa 294;
verbal adjectives in -to 471 ¡ toÓ ge©tono kÅwn or ¡ kÅwn
Victorius, P. 16, 53 n. 163 (¡) toÓ g- or toÓ g- ¡ kÅwn
vine 316 336; t paid©a
vinegar 521 (t) autoÓ or t autoÓ
viper 180 paid©a 338–339; oÉ gr . . .
pw 385; eÔ poiän gr 403;
Wackernagel’s law see word order mhd ì Ëj ì n» 437; toÆ ¯ppou
walking: too fast, censured 209; o¬ pwloÓnte 422, 465; pr»
while talking, censured 447; tino cr»nou or pr¼ cr»nou
while conducting an arbitration tin» 516
447 conditional clause interposed
walking-stick 242–243 between object and verb 354,
washing see bathing, baths, hand, 403
purification, kat kejal¦ enclitic, early in clause
water see bathing, baths, cistern, (Wackernagel’s law) 186
font, purification, wine hyperbaton 299–300, 511
weasel 354–355 infinitive abnormally far from
weather see ships, Zeus dein» 299
wedding: expense 423; feast 423; interrogative postponed 280
present 521 position of: ma 186, 232, 391,
well 401 456, 483; mlei 193; n 522;
whipping 325 rti 324; aÉt» 286, 331, 401,
586
I N D E X O F G R E E K WO R D S
403, 410; gr 284; mn 199, words linked by ka©, with verb
236; Âlo 337; pnu 312 interposed (poll cwn kaª
predicative adj., verb, article + pal) 244, 339, 498, with
noun (mlainan cei tn parenthesis interposed
tr©ca) 187; predic. adj., 370
article + noun, verb (apr¼n workshop 265
t¼ laion pr©w) 511 wreath see garland
prepositional phrase, position wrestling 245–246, 338, 481,
relative to noun and participle 485–486; technical
398, 424, 511 –512 terminology 481, 485
variation between A and B 187, writing-tablet with multiple leaves
192, 218, 255, 294, 315, 261
510 written evidence, proliferation of
verb of speech interposed after 261
speech has begun 378, 459
vocative at head of speech conveys Zeus as rainmaker, weather-god
note of formality 415 202, 339–340, 378, 456
IV I N D E X O F G R E E K WO R D S
gaq, t ‘blessings’ from gods kteion areqai 205
416 kk», kkÛ, ìAkkÛ 231 –232
gaq» of horse 442; gaq¦i tÅchi k»louqo 294
337 koÅein + gen. and Þ 283; ‘be a
gein ‘hold’ a festival, ‘keep’ a date pupil’ of 324
219 kra©a, krat of speech 267
gor see gunaike©a, x gor, kr©beia, prepositions used
plhqoÅh with 163
gorzein 236 kr»druon 316–317
gora±o 252, 263 lazone©a, lazÛn 7, 166–167, 431,
groik©a, groiko 207–208 441
gr» 197 le±n 213
gwg 487 le©jein 413
gÛn see dhm»io, dio lla toiaÓta 186
daxqai (and ½dax-) and ll ì oÔn . . . ge 287
cognates 390–391 llo ‘as well’ 316; llwi (lloi)
djago 442 lgein 179; m»no tän llwn
dolch, dolec©a 199, 393; lcita tän llwn 510;
266 in clause added for rhetorical
hd©a, hd 395 balance after m»no 467–468;
qr»o 269 see e«, tero, toioÓto
a¬mat©a 285 luitelä 289
arein klh 492 ljithr» 359
a«crokrdeia, -kerd 507 ljiton 359
kair©a, kairo 321 lj» 387
587
ma with participle, in various word lavatory’ 335–336; ‘get up’

orders 186, 232, 391, 456, 483; from bed 428
tense of participle with 391 ; nw kaª ktw kaqa©rein 398
ma pollo© 263; ma . . . ka© xio ‘cheap’ 201, 378
263; kaª ma 399 page with k»raka et sim. 459
maq©a 208 pagoreÅein with Âpw m 330
mlei 193, 468 pagwg 256
mnmwn paired with crito pal» of food 401
471 –472 parne±qai ‘refuse’ (absolute) 437
mjibhte±n 436 prceqai 304
n with infin. 262–263; with tacw ìApatoÅria 204
522; repeated 522 pe©paqai 325, 437; pe©rhtai
n (n, ¢n) 189 437
nablleqai of putting on cloak peq©ein 372
210, 392–393 pneia, phn 344
nagka±o ‘relative’ 384 pinai 292, 299, 372; with okade
nadceqai 323 416
nadoc, ndoco 323 pio 190
naiqh©a, na©qhto 333 p», in t p¼ t¦ g¦, t p¼
naicunt©a, na©cunto 291 t¦ kklh©a 195, 210, 271 ; in
nak»ptein 456 brachylogy ‘(water) from’ 352;
nakÅptein 455–456 see rceqai
nal©kein 325 p¼ de©pnou 446
namnein 347 p¼ kard©a, p¼ yuc¦ 377
naneÅein 502 p¼ toÓ proÛpou et sim. 495
napne±n 403 poblpein e« and pr» 183
nap»nipto 391 –392 pogrjein 520
ntai of going to the lavatory poguioÓn 269
335 podhme±n with expression
natrjein of clothes indicating direction 436, with
429 n. 109 dhmo©ai 510
naÅreqai 252, 314, 368 podid»nai as opposed to did»nai
najor ‘reference back’ 283 346
ndrok»balo 493–494 pod©doqai as opposed to pwle±n
ndr»lalo 493 175, 307, 345, 508
neleuqer©a, neleÅqero 301, podokimzein 215, 263, 305
419–420 pokmptein 426
nr with g©gneqai, e²nai, ‘be a pokr©neqai as verb of command
man’ 467; compounded with 360
contrasting partner, polaÅein + gen. of person 435
ndr»jigx etc. 494; in pollÅnai ‘lose’ money 347, 433;
compound need not entail p»lluqai ‘be ruined
masculinity 494 financially’ 473
n©taqai ‘rise to speak’ 324, p»maktron, pomttein 513
422–423, 497, nat with ponenohmno, p»noia 250
verb of speaking 328; ‘go to the pon©zeqai 391
588
popr©aqai 514 aÉl©dion 19, 244

pore±n (-e±qai) + indirect question aÉtokrtwr 466
179 aÉt» ‘the master’ 189; ‘alone’ 429,
porrptein 360 468; aËt» (¾ aÉt»)
p»talma 237 ‘unchanged’ in thought,
potere±n 292 personality 178
p»teuxi 321 aËt» and aut» 172
potr»paio 361 aÉcme±n of lack of oil 473
pojor 517 jinai + acc. and infin. 509
poyn, p»yhtron 513 j©taqai ‘desist’ 204
pÅre(k)to, pÅreuto 205 ìAjr»dito 366
pwqe±n 346–347 crito see mnmwn
ra 195, 383 cqeqai, cqeqeqai (and
rgÅrion 215 un-) 505
rkeia, reko 222 cr 190
rmonik» 248 cri() e«, p©, pr» 389
rrÛthma 387 curon 186, 298
rti after participle 324
rto 294; rto kaª kra 294 bad©zein 362, 447
rÅtaina 299 bakthr©a 242–243; epithets
rcaireizein 468 kampÅlh and ½rq / eÉqe±a
rceqai with p» tino 243
(personal) 185, 488, with balaneÅ 299
präton 488 ballntion 378
rcn lambnein 497; see x rc¦ bptein 299
ìArc©a 221 bdelur©a, bdelur» 314
rcitektone±n 197 bebräqai of tooth-decay 389
rcitktwn lessee/manager of boqai 284
theatre 509 boukejlion / -kjalon 408
koqÅlako 231 bradÅ, bradut in learning,
k» of person 230–231 perception 333
käi mormolÅtteqai 232
p©dion 408 galax©a, Galxia 415
ìAta, ìAte±o, ìAt©a 282 gal¦ 354–355
te±o 393 gmoi 324, 424
trgaloi 241 gr introducing explanatory clause
cole±qai 322 with infin. 185, 216, 284, 402;
tel 437 position 284
trap» 329 gr oÔn 492
aÉqdeia, aÉqdh 343–344 geln p© 171
aÉla©a 243–244 g¦ ‘fuller’s earth’ 313
aÎleio qÅra and aÉle©a sc. qÅra g©(g)neqai 184; ‘amount to’ 334,
382 439; see ½y
aÉle±qai 393, 403 gi(g)nÛkw 200
aÉlht on campaign 282 glaÓx 362
aÉlhtr© 318–319, 393 gnajeÅ 313
589
grammate±on, grammtion, diayiqur©zein 196

grammat(e)©dion 261 –262 didakale±on 270
gunaike©a gor 193–194, 427; did»nai see podid»nai
gunaike±on gno 324 die©rgein 328
dihge±qai introducing indirect
dktulo, daktÅlion, daktul©dion speech 416–418, direct speech
412–413 460
Dmippo 202 d©kh see dhm»io, e«inai, r¦mo,
dane©zein, -zeqai 175, 298 dio, nikn
daneitik» 433 dimoir©a 508
djnh 353 dioike±qai 414
d without preceding ka© or mn di»ti 444
262 dijn 306
de±gma 54, 432–433 dijqra 218
deiknÅein 319 diwqe±n, -e±qai 450–451
dein» + infin. 178, 270, 299, dokimzein, dokimat, d»kimo of
305 coin-testing 215
de±pnon p¼ umbolän 303, 519, d»xeien n 168
520; see p», p© dracm m©a and oÉd m©a 434–435;
deiidaimon©a, deiida©mwn see c©liai
349–351 due±n / duo±n 186
dekadita© 304, 483 ducreia, ducer 386
dekzein 471
dmh 23, 261 n (n, ¢n) 189
dceqai ‘accept’ what comes from aut» and aËt» 172
gods 416 ggÅh, gguht 322, 384
d 179, 395 ggÅ with e²nai 486
dhmagwg» 473–474 gkptein 264
dhmokrat©a euphemistic 498 gk»nima 245
d¦mo see n täi dmwi dran trjein 485
dhm»io gÛn, dhmo©a d©kh 500; qlein / qlein 169, 348, 448
see podhme±n e« d m 296
dhm»th 460–462 e ti (kaª) llo 187
diabllein 355 e«d¦ai 164
dizeugma 433 e¯neka 292
d©aita see pitrpein epa 224
dialog©zeqai 177 e²pon imperative 399
dinoian jitnai 161 erwn, e«rwne©a 166–167
dipeiran (also pe±ran, p»peiran) e« with sum of money, ‘as much as’
lambnein 330, 501 443; with name of festival, ‘for’
diate©neqai 257, 313 345, 479; ‘to meet the cost of’
diatiqnai see tiqnai 496
diatrÛgein 359 e« nwta 202
diajage±n 359 e« tn Ëtera©an 298
dijoron ‘expenditure’, ‘ready e« t¼ koin»n 520
money’ 302 e«aggllein 192
590
e«inai ‘return home’ 310; with d©kh nte©nein, nte©neqai 328

subject or object 334; with e« nteuxi 223, 321
rcn 468 ntugcnein of accidental encounter
e«pijrnai 509 169, not accidental 174
e«jrein with ranon 347, 440 x gor with ‘buy’, ‘shop’ 425
e«jreqai, pijreqai ‘bring in’ a x rc¦ didkein 324
dowry 426 xgein, xagwg 437
e²ta 200, 293; see kita xinai ‘leave home’ 293
k ‘after’ 201 ; in brachylogy ‘(water) xhght 359–360
from’ 352 xodo of licensed excursion by
k qumoÓ, k kard©a, k yuc¦ woman 427
377–378 x»mnuqai and xwmo©a 259,
k (toÓ) koinoÓ 519 447
k toÓ mou with pinai et sim. xw, o¬ 520
423 xw toÓ prgmato 165
kato see t kaq ì kata oraknai / wr- 177
kbllein ‘drop’ 305, 393 pagglleqai 327
kdid»nai ‘give out’ for repair 360 pagwg 361
kqÅeqai 360–361 pn 189, 355, 449
kkore±n 428 paninai 292
kkor©zein 428 peidn 248
klgein ‘levy payment’ 254 pente©nein 284
kpwma 383 peq©ein 372
ktrjein of clothes 429 n. 109 peÅceqai 348
ktr©bein 413 p© with p©da, d»ru, oÉrn
la, la©a 307 478–479
ìElaj»tikto 491 pª polÅ + gen. 389
leuqer©a euphemistic 498 pª t¼ me±zon (ce±ron et sim.) 168,
leÅqero of woman 314; 505
euphemistic 501 pª (toÓ) dikathr©ou 503
mbllein with l»gon 185; ‘throw pª täi belt©twi 223
into the manger’ 213 pª täi de©pnwi 200
mp©ptein with l»go 185 pibllein ‘add’, in speech 267,
mjobo 453 280–281 , to the sale-price
n ‘within’ a specified time 302; 514
‘equipped with’, ‘wearing’ 409; pigrjein p© + acc. 331
‘dependent on’, ‘invested in’ pide©knuqai, p©deixi 248
433 pidxio 502–503
n-compound verbs, p©doi 327–328, 422, 438
final-consecutive use 248 pikatallag 518
n (t¦i) kklh©ai 503 pikattÅein see kattÅein
n täi dmwi 273, 414, 422 pikrat© 191
n Ëgräi 274 pikrhp© 191
n cräi ke©reqai 312 pilambneqai 274, 283
nepide©knuqai 248 pimele±qai with proqÅmw 324
nqume±qai Þ 183 p©ptaima 388
591
pirrptein 360 c±no 23, 260

pihma©neqai 1 n. 2, 188 cein (Þ, pä, oÌtw cein) + dat.
p©talma 236 or pr» + acc. ‘be disposed to’
pitllein ‘send instructions by 435; see kakä
letter’ 451 yein 339
pija±ra, p©jairon 246 w (n) 355, 385
p©teuxi 321
pitimn with Âti 394 z¦lo ‘style’ 1 n. 2
pit©mhi 376 zug»n ‘beam’ of scales 296
pitrpein d©aitan 447 zwm» 285, 398
pijreqai see e«j- zwr» 212
ran©zein, rano 175
rgatrion 265 ¢ 255
rgolbo 282 ¡ge±qai with acc. ¾d»n etc. 329
rgon (sc. ti) with infin. ‘it is ¢dh with pot 177; with mllein
difficult’ 205, 457 395
r¦mo of d©kh 289 ¡dÅ see Àzein
ëErmajr»dito 366–368 qik» 4
k»raka 459 §qo 252, 278–279
q©eqai of tooth-decay 389 ¡lik©a see par and Ëpr
taire©a, ta±ro 468 ¡miol©a 454–455
tero (also llo) with g©gneqai, ¤miu, ¡m©ea / -©h 519–520
e²nai 178; ¾ tero . . . t¼n ¡miwblion 263
teron referring to more than ¢n (n, n) 189
two 249 ¡n©ka (n) 508–509
ti with participle 196 ìHr©ai pÅlai 341 –342
eÔ ge Âti 268 ¡ttqai ‘be defeated in law’, ‘be in
eÔ ge Ëpmnha 268 a state of (military) defeat’ 170;
eÔ poie±n 402–403, 446 ¡tt¦qai ‘be in a state
eÉgen of Thracian 489 of (legal) defeat’ 170, 318,
eÉhmere±n of successful performance 500
417 hÉ- not eÉ- as augment and
eÉqÅ with participle 220, 278 reduplication 184, 378, 379
eËr©kein ‘fetch’ a price 345
eÉtrep©zein 330 qko ‘lavatory’ 335–336
eÉjra©neqai with sexual qaumzein with t© dpote 162; with
connotation 404 e« ‘wonder if’ (as opposed to
eÉju 502–503 ‘wonder that’) 377, 378
eÉwce±n figurative 281 qaÅmata of popular entertainments
jlkein ‘cause to lag behind’, 254, 481
‘postpone’ 512 qa ‘spectacle, performance’ 236,
jhbo 235–236, 480 516–517; ‘seat in theatre’
jinai + acc. and infin. 509 297
jitnai see dinoian qeatropÛlh 509
jodeÅein 264 qeatrÛnh 509
jorn of dire sights 370 qlein see qlein
592
qe» of natural phenomena 340, kaª pä; 379

456; symmetrical pairing of kain»n ti, kain»ter»n ti of news
qeo© and qea© 369 281
qerm»n sc. Ìdwr 496 ka©per with indicative 187
qewre±n 334 kair» 321 ; kairoÓ tugcnein 321
qhrioÓqai and cognates of kita 213, 300
(medical) malignancy 388 kakolog©a, kakol»go 487
Qritta 490 kakä cein 330
qÅein, regularly imperfect 415; with kal of ¬er 416
internal acc. (of occasion of kalliloge±n, -log©a 180
sacrifice) or acc. object kallÅnein, klluma 306, 428
(sacrifice itself) 415–416 kampÅlo of walking-stick 243
qÅlako of person 230–231 ; for kruon 317
groats 359, 447 K()andro 283–284
qulakotrÛx 359 kat + acc. with numeral 439–440
qÅlhma 311 kat kejal¦ of washing 373
qÅmon 209 kat l»gon ‘proportionately’ 516
kat ceir» of washing before
dio gÛn, «d©a d©kh 500 dinner 391
¬ereÛunon 423 kataba©nein 218
¬er» snake 356–357 katabllein 278–279
¬kan» 258 katagignÛkein with gen. of
¬mtion 210–211 ; see clothing person 179
¬matim» 443 katgnuqai with kejaln, -¦
¬ppzeqai 483 483
¬tnai see tlh katake±qai 406, 460
«cur» 288 katallag 518
ìIjikrat©de 190–191 kattrwma 424
«cquopÛlion 264 katatiqnai ‘put down (money)’
521 ; -t©qeqai ‘lay up (in
Kbeiroi 455 memory)’ 385
ka(g)czein 300 katajreqai 165, 186
kaqa©rein, aorist kaqrai or -¦rai katcein ‘know’ 467
361, with nw kaª ktw 398 kattÅein (pik-), kttuma, kttui
kaq ì na 269 427–428
kaq¦qai of idle talkers 185; o¬ ke±qai of money ‘be deposited’ 435
kaqmenoi 315, 503 Klado 412
kaqiznein 211 kramo 257
kaq©zeqai transitive 229 kerannÅnai of wine 328
ka© with numeral (‘as much as’) k¦rux, khrÅttein ‘auctioneer’,
440 ‘auction’ 255
kaª . . . ge 269 k©bwto 306
kaª . . . d 171, 218, 262, 498 kikkabzein 362
kaª mn (+ oÉ, oÉd, oÉ . . . ge) k©mbix 301, 511
178–179, 196 kicrnai, k©craqai 247
kaª mn . . . ge 281 kldo, Kldo 411 –412
593
kle±, kle±de, kle±da 312 lagcnein see Ìpnou

kl©nh 306, 428, 443 lkko 401
knajeÅ 313 lale±n, llo 266
kobleia, k»balo, K»balo lambnein ‘get’ from vendor etc.
493–494 296, 385, 433; ‘find’ 400; see
koin» ‘impartial’, of arbitrator rcn, dipeiran, logim»n,
227–228; pr¼ t koin plhg, tÅpwi, Ìpno
proinai et sim. 471 ; koin¼ lampda trcein 480
ëErm¦ 512; see e«, k lacan©dion 261
kolake©a, k»lax 181 –182 lcanon 401
kom©zein, -eqai 436, 522 lgein with Âti or Þ not infin.
k»ni associated with wrestling 178; paired with prttein 197;
245 ‘call’ with acc. predicate 224,
k»ni()ma 245 501 ; t© lgei; 281 ; grmmata
konitrion 245 as subject 436; ‘command’
kon©tra 245 436; t¼ leg»menon parenthetic
k»poi 339 492
k»rdax 252–253 lgein kak or kakä with per© +
k»ri 428 gen. 498
krtito of person 224 lgein oÉdn 267
kre©wn of god 362 lgein ç¦in 347, 478
kreopÛlh 264, 295 lgein ti 279, ti kain»n or
krhp© (shoe) 191 –192 kain»teron 179
kriq 298 lpra 387
kr©nein with prgma 323, 503, lept» of coin 216 n. 29; of clothing
with kr©in 505 392; of human figure 473
kr©non 490 leitourg©a / lhit- 441
kri» ‘ram’ and ‘battering-ram’ l¦ro 492
482–483 libanwt» 364–365
krokÅ 186 log©zeqai of financial calculation
krote±n ‘applaud’ 314, 393 304, 334; log- pr» 450
kubernth 424 logim¼n lambnein 518
kubeÅein 256 logogrjo 379
kukeÛn 20, 208 logopoie±n, logopoi» 277
kÅklo, -oi area in market where l»go see mp©ptein, makr»,
slaves sold 194 prxei
kulike±on 381 lop 305
kÅminon, kuminopr©th 301, loÓqai 450, 497
310 lÅein of speech 265
kun©dion Melita±on 409 LÅkwn 282
kÅptw and compounds 196, lÅcno 382
448–449; non-tragic 449
kÅwn, gender of 238 mageire±on 264
kwmzein 322 mgeiro 255, 264, 401
kwmwido© of performance itself mag©de 372
421 makr» of l»go 199
594
malak©zeqai of illness 174, 330 naumace±n / naumac©a and

malak», -ä of physical comfort pezomace±n / pezomac©a
195 paired 289
mmmh 399 nmein 472
mnti 368 ne»ttion of child 190; accentuation
mrtu see met, parakale±n 190
mceqai ‘quarrel’ 254, 338, 444 nikn with mchi or mchn 284,
mch of speech 271 ; see nikn with d©khn 379
meirkion 480 noumhn©a 218–219
mllein see ¢dh nutzein, -xai / -ai 274
memyimoire±n, memyimoir©a,
memy©moiro 376 xnia ‘hospitality’, ‘presents’
mn . . . d 424 xenodok©a 444
mn oÔn 168
mntoi 490 ½gkoÓqai 488
mer© 377 ½daxqai see dax-
me»kouro 469 ¾d» see t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ
meopore±n 456 Àzein ¡dÅ 340
met ì eÉno©a 327 Àzeqai 392
met martÅrwn 382 o³, Âpoi 329
metablleqai of changing okade not equivalent to okoi 416;
clothes 234 with pinai 416
metaxÅ 274 o«ke±o, -oi 383–384; o«ke©w cein
m introducing indirect + dat. 435
question 196, direct o«kht» 471
question 280 o«k»ito 424
mhdamo± 436 o«nrion 377
mhde© / mhqe© 183–184 ½la© 311
m¦lon ‘tree fruit’ 190 ½ligarc©a, -cik» 463
mn see kaª mn Âlon, t» ‘speaking generally’ 177
mikrolog©a, mikrol»go 301 ¾mile±n, ¾mil©a 182, 344
mikrojilotim©a, -jil»timo ¾moite±n, ¾m»ito 304
405–406 ½neirokr©th 368
mie±n, rare perfect mem©hka ½nomatª kale±n 318
495 Àntw 377
miop»nhro 499 ½xuqÅmia 371
mn¦ma 410 ½piqokrhp© 191
molg» 231 ¾plomco 247–248, 479
molubr» 215–216 Âpoi see o³
m»non oÉ 384 ¾p»teron / -a (also p»teron /
m»no see llo -a) . . . ¢ 179
mu±a, muio»bh 459 ½pÛra 317
mÅron 208, 234 Âpw with fut. indic. 452
muropÛlion 264, 320 Âpw (n) with final subj. 276, 414
murr©nh 364–365 Âra m with present indic. or subj.
Murr©nh 412 179
595
¾ri; 186 parade©gmati cr¦qai 164

¾rn ‘meet’ 227 paradeipne±n 289
½rqä ‘well said’ 188 paraqeqai 163
½r©ganon 310 parakale±n or paralambnein with
¾rmaq» 23, 260–261 mrtura 338
½rniqok»po 368 parake±qai of fellow diner (also
Âro pillar on mortgaged property parakl©neqai) 194; of food on
308 table 398
ìOrjeotelet 369–370 paralambnein see parakale±n
Âte ‘whereas’ 341, ‘seeing that’ 379 pararrgnuqai of voice 257
Âte d ka© 341 parae©ein 204
Âti introducing direct speech 192, parito 194, 403
indirect 444; ‘because’ 444 paratrjein, -troj, -troj©
oÉdamo± 436 429
oÉde© / oÉqe© 183–184 paratiqnai 309
oÉdn lgein 267 pare©a snake 356
oÉ mn ( . . . ge) 179 pare±nai of support at law or as
oÉkoÓn d 487 witness or in arbitration 227,
oÉr ‘rear’ of army 479 259, 323
oÕto see pronoun parinai of public speaker 415
oÌtw() ‘simply’ 165; resumptive parrh©a euphemistic 498
after participle 354, 382 pttein with salt 293
½yrion, ½yar©dion 261 paÅeqai as opposed to paÅaqai
½y with g©gneqai or e²nai 174 314–315
½yimaq, ½yimaq©a 477 pacÅ of clothing 392
Àyon, ½ywne±n 295, 310, 401, 425, pezomace±n / pezomac©a and
496 naumace±n / naumac©a paired
½yopoi» 401 289
pe±ran lambnein 330; e« pe±ran
paideÅein see pepaideÓqai lqe±n 501
paid©on child’ as opposed to pa± pmpein ‘send’ a present 345, 521
‘slave’ 370, 427 pepaideÓqai ‘be an expert’ 486
palaitria±o 19, 244 pra with toÓ donto, toÓ
palaitr©dion 20, 244 prgmato 165
palillog©a 180 peraitrw 437–438
pal©mphgon, pal©mphxi 428 peri-compounds, of lustration 353
plin of verbal contradiction 180 perª p»da 209
palindor©a 428 perª tän meg©twn 210
pn mllon ¢ 459 peribllein ‘embrace’ 226
pandokeÅein, pandokeÅ 255 perierg©a, per©ergo 327
pantopoi» 252 periethk»te, o¬ of spectators
pnu 312 331 –332
pppa 275–276 periinai ‘go round’ shops 220;
par with p»ton et sim. 478 peri(i)Ûn 220
par tn ¡lik©an 478 peri©taqai + acc. 257
par t¼ pro¦kon 377 periorn, -orqai 457
596
perirra©neqai, perirrantrion pr¼ toÓ + acc. and infin. 279

353, 370 pr¼ cr»nou (polloÓ, tin» etc.)
peripogg©zein 459 521
phloÓn 346 proaggllein 192–193
p©qhko 238 proaire±n 212
p©nax 365, 420–421 proa©rei 464
p©tta 340–341 progrjein 10
PlaggÛn 412 prodidkein 270
pltigx 296 proqÅmw see pimele±qai
pleqr©zein (kp-), plqrima 434 proinai with e« 442
plkein, plok of speech 179 prok»lpion 23, 260, 425
plhg lambnein 325 promanqnein 270
plhqoÅh t¦ gor 315 prometwp©dion 408
pln ¢ 184 proprth, -prtwr 324
plrwma ‘filling’ of auditorium, propwle±n, -pÛlh 324
‘performance’ 481 pr» with verb of speech 228, with
plhizein 468 verb implying ‘previous
plh©on pleonastic with para- motion’ 457
200 pr¼ tr»pou 514
plÛimo 201 proaggllein 192–193
podap», potap» 331 proanatr©beqai 481
poie±n ‘make a total’ 440 prodihge±qai 271
pollki with qaumzein 161 prodok©a 431
pollo© (te) kaª pantodapo© 163 proinai of deliberate encounter
Polukl¦ 163 169, 396, 448; with pr» not e«
Polu()prcwn 283 442; see koin»
ponhr©a, ponhr» 499 proitnai pr» + acc. 319
ponhr»jilo 499 prokejlaion 197, 458
p»panon 364–365 prokune±n 358
popanourg©a 396 prokÅptein 196
poppÅzein 396 propoie±qai with negative
pornoboke±n, pornobok» 255, preceding, ‘pretend not’
404 176; with pr» + acc. 442
PoideÛn 204, 497 propo©hi 168, 327, 431
pooÓn 385, 439 propta©ein, pr»ptaima 388
p»ou oei (doke±) . . .; 341 pro()t¦nai 319
pote 271 protate±n 505
p»teron see ¾p»teron procwre±n 200–201
potrion 383 PuanoyiÛn 204
pot©zein 330, 402 pur» 201
prgma ‘case’, with kr©nein 323, puroÓn ‘prove (quality of metal) by
503; o¬ n to± prgmai 285; fire’ 384
see xw, pra pwle±n as opposed to pod©doqai
prxei and l»goi paired 168, 277, 175, 307, 345, 505
344 pä doke±, pä oeqe parenthetic
prttein and lgein paired 197 286
597
ç¦in lgein 347–348, 478 umblleqai 479–480

çtwr ‘politician’ 272 Åmbolon ‘admission ticket’ 254
ç©ptein ‘cast off’ clothes 480 ungein of synoecism 474;
çÅgco 214 ‘assemble for a (drinking)
çuqm» ‘shape’ 192 party’, trans. 484, intrans. 520
çupoÓn 346 unarkeqai (and unarke±qai)
205–206
alpikt 459 unaÅxein 484
turo, Cturo 239 uncqeqai see cqeqai
hma©neqai 381 undioike±qai 414
meron / tmeron 220 untttein + dat. and infin. 449
hpedÛn 356 uite±n, Åito 304
©alon 391 uje» 392
©raion 364 ja±ra ‘boxing-glove’ 246
iwp¦i with pinai et sim. 422 jairitrion 244–246
klo see arein jairomace±n, -mac©a 246
keÅh ‘utensils’ 306 cetlizein, cetliam» 287
khn, khn©th ‘stall’, ‘stall-keeper’ c±no 233
443 Cw©a 488
k©lla 374 Cw©dhmo 488
koli» of walking-stick 243 Cw©trato 488
kulodyh, kutod- 360
kutlh, kÅtalon, kutlion t kaq ì kata (-on) 200
242–243 t t¦ tÅch 287
obar», obe±n 470 tain©a 421
pqh 458 tain©dion 421
taqm» ‘scales’ 296 tamie±on 212
tmma ‘fillet’ for sacrificial animal taraca© 268
311, 408 taricopÛlion 264
tejanoÓn ‘garland’ a statue 365 trico neut. sing. 218, 221 –339;
tlh 410; tlhn ¬tnai 411 tricoi masc. pl. 221
tigmat©a 491 tat 276
trathge±n, trathg» role tatÅra 240
claimed by comic cooks and TaÓro 412
Plautine slaves 263 tacw n 522
troggÅlo 241 –242 te©nein and compounds, intrans.
trÛmata ‘mattress’ 424 284, 328
Æ m with imperative or equiv. tele±n (and cognates) of initiation
268 369–370, 481
ugkroÅein 326 telwne±n, telÛnh 255
ukotrage±n, -trgo, -trag©dh ttaro 240
307 te . . . ka© 251
ukojante±n, -jnth 437 tmeron / meron 220
ullab 258 tn tac©thn 452
ullgein ‘collect’ financial thnikde 508
contributions 426 thnikaÓta 508–509
598
t¦ aÉt¦ ¾doÓ 220 Ëlakte±n 504

t© lgei; 281 Ë», u¬» 298
T©beio, T©bio 40, 294–295 ËpakoÅein ‘answer (door)’ 214, 494
tiqnai ‘move into place’ counters of Ìpeixi 453
abacus (also dia-) 439, 450; Ëpmnha with eÔ ge, kalä (ge),
‘place to account’, ‘reckon’ e« kal»n, ½rqä 268
440, 520; ‘put down’ money, Ëpr + gen., ‘over’ 355, 394,
‘pay’ 521 ‘about’ 400, 502
timn ‘reward’ with a present 345 Ëpr tn ¡lik©an 478
ti with adj. 228; with noun (‘a type Ëperhmer©a, Ëpermero 308–309
of’) 494; with cr»no 521 Ëperhjan©a, Ëperjano 9, 445
t©turo, T©turo 239–241 Ìpnon a¬re±qai 276
t» introducing quoted words 478 Ìpno lambnei + acc. 276, 460
t¼ t¦ tÅch 287 Ìpnou with tugcnein 382, 460,
toioÓto characteristic of epilogues with lagcnein 460
and spurious passages 179, 265; Ëp» + acc. (person), ‘subject to’
toioÓto (ti) o³o + infin. 449
168–169; lla toiaÓta 186; o¬ Ëpobllein 267, -blleqai 388
toioÓtoi with partitive gen. Ëpolambnein ‘take over’ (of
205, 468; kaª t toiaÓta speaker) 267, ‘take on back’,
389–390 ‘support’ 459
t»ko 263, 309 Ëp»lhyi 380
t»te not usually of indefinite past Ëpomnein 347
time 271 Ëp»mnuqai 259
tragmata 316, 317 Ëpomon 251
tragwide±n, tragwid©a figurative Ëpopr©aqai 513–514
470 Ëpotiqnai 520–521
tragwido© of performance itself 421 Ëpoywne±n 514
trpeza of bank 235, 434, of shop Ìteron pleonastic with pi- 249
296; ‘meal’ 519
trachl©zein 481 jak¦ 339
trjein ‘keep’ animals 239 jaian» 240–241
tr©bwn 429 jnai ‘say yes’ 284, 382
tri»doi, n (or pª) ta± 373 FeidÛn(e)io 512–513
tr©calkon 305 jqeirÛdh 388
trwglia 316, 317 jilarc©a 464
tÅpwi (or n tÅpwi) e«pe±n or jiltairo 502
(peri)labe±n 168 jilom»cqhro 499
tÅch 287; see gaq», t, t» jiloponhr©a, -p»nhro 499–500
jilopon©a 477–478
Ëgr» 274 jilotim©a 405, 419, 420
Ìdwr poie±n 202 jilocrhmat©a 420
Ìein with or without ZeÅ as subject jil»crhto 499
339–340, 378 jo±nix 307
Ëe±, u¬e± 298 jrthr 460–461, 518
599
jr©ttein associated with sight of crht» of food 195; of clothes,

divinity 375 furniture, ‘serviceable’ 234; in
julttein 504; (and jultteqai) epitaphs 330; antonym of
with m 384 ponhr» 500; ironical 501 ;
julth 462 title granted to Phocion 501
cr±()ma 234–235
calke±on / calk©on 298–299 cr»no see pr», ti
calk» ‘bronze money’ 518 cÅtra 305
calkoÓ coin 254, 496 cäma at Piraeus 433
camaª p©ptein 308 cwr©on 215
camaipet 308
caraktr 4–5 y¦jo in abacus 334, 439,
cri ‘thanks’, ‘gratitude’ 300, 472 450–451
ceir©zein 518 yoje±n, y»jo 436
c©liai sc. dracma© 440 yuc as term of endearment 490;
cili 440 see p», k
citwn©ko 392, 456 yucr»n sc. Ìdwr 496
clamÅ 409 yucr» in stylistic criticism 189
clwr» of tur» 441
c»lix, col©kion 297 Ýqe±n 346–347
c»rto 213–214 -Ûnh 509
cro / crw 515 Ýnhtin 175, 443
crnnumi, crhnnÅnai, crhnnÅw, Þ = ãte 417; introducing direct
crhnnÅein 247, 310 speech 460, 471, 504
crim» tini g©gneqai 295 Þ d with participle 189
600

(Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries) James Diggle, Theophrastus-Theophrastus - Characters-Cambridge University Press (2007)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries) James Diggle, Theophrastus-Theophrastus - Characters-Cambridge University Press (2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This page intentionally left blank

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS

Cambridge University Press

© Cambridge University Press 2004

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of

First published in print format 2004

ISBN-13 978-0-511-26468-9 eBook (EBL)

ISBN-13 978-0-521-83980-8 hardback

Sharples, D. Gutas (edd.), Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life,

to establish the Lyceum in buildings of its own.7 Demetrius was

l»gou gnwr©zetai, ‘the stamp of a man is recognised from his

(ii) Antecedents and relations

Deﬁciency Mean Excess

Aristotle develops the analysis of individual virtues and vices

occasions, for example by entertaining his dining club on the

And so a new type of work came into existence, owing some-

(iii) Later Peripatetics

OÉdenwt.29 Although the form of the original sketches

A single sentence is preserved from a work, possibly but not

(iv) Other developments

of Theophrastus, but soon developing into anecdotal narrative

(v) The purpose of the Characters

from a single work, it still remains to explain what the purpose

derive from Aristotle’s lost work on comedy.43 They are ‘a mere

and shapes.47 In evidence of this he adduces their lack of sym-

(vi) Authenticity and integrity

III, VI, VIII, X, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX) have epilogues, which

sentences (II.9, VI.2, VII.5, VIII.5, XVI.13) and even a sen-

once.63 (iii) That Eustathius, when he says (in the passage

(vii) Integrity and style

LSJ takes it to mean ‘suited for a pala©tra’. Cobet replaced

What could be more limpid than that? The Greek is simpli-

First, he answers the door himself. Why? Normally, you would

Theophrastus can prompt us to think, to ask questions, to ﬁll in

rän ta©ra kaª kri¼ (-oÆ V) probllwn ta± qÅrai plhg

This is a masterly sentence, short and simple, with the most

he can create a whole personality out of half a line or a single

parekeuamno lampr¼n ¬mtion kaª tejanwmno parelqÜn

suspect that the occasion which he chooses to report is not the

(viii) Literary inﬂuence

of them is a papyrus of the third century ad, which attests an

Theophrastan Character in England to 1642 (Harvard 1947), J. W.

long enough in Macedonia to be imagined as issuing three invi-

In VIII the Logopoi» claims that Polyperchon and the king

(ii) Alexander IV,87 posthumous son of Alexander and

designated as ‘the king’, at a time when he is only one king of two.

(ii) Cassander invaded Macedonia, defeated Polyperchon, and

By contrast with VIII, the dramatic date of XXVI (the

possibilities are: (i) before 322 (advent of Phocion); (ii) 318/17

that it occurred ‘perhaps in the mid 330’s’.107 The date of Ath.

107 108 109

‘elect’, and the question is how many will be chosen, with-

composition, even during a period of oligarchy. I do not even

A date before 322 has been suggested for other sketches

impossible to assign a single date of composition to the whole

of Philodemus (P1 ), like the medieval manuscripts, presents

In addition to these three, 68 later manuscripts are

(ii) The tradition in a nutshell

I–XV.142 c also acquired XVI–XXVIII from a slightly abridged

derived from an ancestor (m) which acquired I–XV from a

(iii) The manuscripts148

collation in Torraca (1974). A feature unique to B and some

19 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, N.58 (= 4687). c. 1462.

OÉdenwt.29 Although the form of the original sketches

rän ta©ra kaª kri¼ (-oÆ V) probllwn ta± qÅrai plhg

parekeuamno lampr¼n ¬mtion kaª tejanwmno parelqÜn

Kraft der Konjekturalkritik geben.’190 The conjectures Pra

Tit. e«rwne©a a é B, e«r- präto A 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 Þ B: n

7 [toiaÅta jwn kaª plok kaª palillog©a eËre±n ti

Tit. kolake©a b é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 ¾ d k»lax toioÓt» ti o³o

7 kaª jila d e«pe±n “CrhtoÓ patr¼ ne»ttia”. kaª unw-

21 d B1 c : kaª B: om. A neott©a B 22 ì Ijikrat©da M.

Tit. dolec©a g é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 ti Hanow: tin AB Án

Tit. groik©a d é 1 del. Darvaris 2 gro±ko A ti om. A

taÓta t¦ nukt¼ kat grupn©an namimnhk»meno

22 t¦ A: toÓ B 23–4 kaª . . . gkroÓai hoc loco Diggle: post

6 <. . . . .> kaª pleitki d poke©raqai kaª toÆ ½d»nta

Tit. reke©a e é (e é om. A) 1 –2 del. Darvaris (incertum an habuerit P)

7 cr©mati le©jeqai. kaª t¦ mn gor pr¼ t trapza

Tit. pono©a vé (vé om. A) 1 del. Darvaris kaª l»gwn a1 , ed.

9 kaª ¾rmaqoÆ grammateid©wn n ta± cer©n. <kaª> oÉk

21 grammateid©wn Herwerden: -id©wn AB <kaª> Meier 22 po-

Tit. lal©a z é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 ti B: ti t© A 4 oÉdn A

ge ma dihgoÅmeno kathgor©an parembale±n, ãte toÆ

24 pilabqai Casaubon: -laqqai AB: ]ai P nutaai P: -xai

tina n o«k©ai, ¢dh pemptn ¡mran ¤konta k Makedon©a,

22 taÓta (alterum) Casaubon: taÓta pnta A: pnta B oeqe de: -qai

Tit. mikrolog©a i é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 -blion Diels: -b»lion AB

14 [kaª t¼ Âlon d tän mikrol»gwn kaª t rguroqka

23–9 del. Edmonds 24 «oumna Blaydes: «wm- AB 25 mhrän

Tit. bdelur©a ia é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 <ti> Herwerden 4 na-

Tit. kair©a ibé (bé A) 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 <cr»nou> Ruge,

Tit. naiqh©a idé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d c: d kaª A: kaª B

Tit. aÉqade©a ieé 1 del. Darvaris 3 m om. A parce A

Tit. p¼ tän toÓ Qeojrtou caraktrwn, ivé caraktr deiidaimon©a V

gorai murr©na, libanwt»n, p»pana kaª e«elqÜn ew

Tit. ih pit©a 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 <¡> c2 , Darvaris 4 ½y-

Tit. iq ducere©a 1–2 del. Darvaris 3 o³o cd: o³on V 4 m-

7 <. . . . . .> kaª e« ½rniqok»pou t¦ mhtr¼ xelqoÅh bla-

19–25 ad caput alienum rettulit Pauw 19 e« cd: e« x V 20 kbale±n

1 [ ï Etin ¡ hd©a, Þ Ârwi labe±n, nteuxi lÅph poihtik

Tit. hd©a ké 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 o³o cd: o³on V 4 ¢dh

Tit. mikrojilotim©a kaé 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d»xeien n c1 : d»xei V

Tit. neleuqer©a kb é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 3 nika Lycius: nik¦ai V

23 kkor©ai Casaubon: -¦ai V kaqez»meno cd: -on V 24 aÉt¼n

Tit. lazone©a kg é 1 –2 del. Darvaris 1 d»xeien n c1 : d»xei V